)!ii; 


REPORTS 


MAJORITY     AND    MINORITY 


COMMITTEE    OF    THE    SENATB 


POST    OFFICE     AND    POST    ROADS^ 


TOGETHEU  WITH  THB 


DOCUMENTS  ACCOMPANYING  THE  SAME; 


TO  WHICH    IS   VBEFIXSO    AN 


INDEX 


PRINCIPAL    MATTERS    IN    THE    REPORTS. 


WASHINGTON; 

PRINTED     BY    DUFF     GREEN. 
lSi«5. 


\ 


INDEX   TO   THE    REPORTS. 


1 

SUBJECT. 

Majority  Rept. 

Minority  Rept. 

Page 

Page 

>     Finances    .---.-. 

1 

90 

/}    Available  fund  in  1829,      .             -             .             -            - 

3 

John  Herron's  case             ..... 

9 

97 

Removal  of  Henry  Safford             .... 

9 

97 

Removal  of  Postmasters     .             -             -             -             - 

8 

97 

Removal  of  William  Wyman        .... 

11 

97 

t\.  Improved  bids  and  extra  allowances 

12 

101 

James  F.  Robinson's  contract  from  Cincinnati  to  George- 

town  -.-...- 

18 

102 

'     J.  and  B.  Bennett's  contract  from  Bellefont  to  Meadville, 
y             Pennsylvania  .-..-- 
^   William  Tillow's  contract  from  Newark  to  Paterson,  New 
ot            Jersey               ...... 

0  Paper  and  twine,  supplies  .            -            •            .            . 

23 

109 

25 

110 

28 

93 

James   Reeside's  contract  from  Hagerstown  to  McCon- 

nellsburg         ...... 

31 

107 

"^   James  Reeside's  contract  from  Bedford  to  Washington, 

^           Pennsylvania  ...... 

38 

107 

'    James    Reeside's   contract   from   Cumberland    to  Blair's 
^           Gap 

39 

109 

J    James  Reeside's  contract  from  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg 
*  James  Reeside's  contract  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg 

45 

108  • 

47 

105 

^  James  Reeside's  contract  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York 

59 

111 

Expresses  of  Government  on             do                    do 

66 

112 

Extra  allowances  on                            do                     do 

59 

111 

STotal  of  payments  on                        do                    do 

76 

1 

^  Extra  allowance  on  contract,  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg 

50 

105 

0.  B.  Brown's  pecuniary  transactions  with  Reeside  and 

! 

^          Slaymaker       -.--.. 

81 

si 

O.  B.  Brown's  pecuniary  transactions  with  Edwin  Porter 

82 

98 

1 

Do.        do       deposite  in  the  Bank  of  Maryland 

84 

100 

Alterations  of  entries  in  books  of  department 

86 

99 

Loans  by  department  from  contractors       ... 

86 

Legal  provisions  recommended                  ... 

89 

115 

iji 


23d  Congress,  f   86   1 


2d  Session 


IN  SENATR  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


January  21,   1835. 

Read. 

January  2S,   1835. 
Ordered  to  be  printed,  and  that  20,000  additional  copies  be  prfnled  for  the  use  of  the  Senate  > 

Mr.  EwiNG  made  the   following 

REPORT, 

(with  senate  bill  no.    128.) 

The  Committee  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post  Roads,  iii  obedience  to  the 
resolution  of  the  Senate  of  the  25th  June,  1834,  have  continued  their 
examination,  heretofore  commenced,  into  the  condition  and  proceed- 
ings of  the  Post  Office  Department;  and  having  made  further  pro- 
gress therein,  report: 

That  your  committee  met  at  Washington  city  on  the  19ih  day  of  Sep- 
tember last;  and  having  informed  the  Postmaster  General  that  they  were 
ready  to  proceed  with  their  investigation,  he  provided  them  a  room  in  the 
post  office  building,  and  designated  the  heads  of  bureau  and  the  clerks  who 
would  furnish  such  books  and  papers,  copies  and  extracts;  as  might  b<* 
called  for  in  reference  to  the  several  subjects  embraced  in  the  inquiry. 

One  of  the  principal  difficulties  which  had  been  encountered  in  the  inves- 
tigation during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  was  that  of  arriving,  even  by 
approximation,  at  the  state  of  the  finances  of  the  department.  It  was  a 
subject  on  which  the  opinions  of  different  members  of  your  committee  were 
Avidely  variant,  and  they  could  determine  nothing  with  certainty  from  a 
mere  inspection  of  the  books,  or  a  footing  of  the  accounts.  Many  very 
large  and  important  items  were  merely  made  the  subjeci  of  a  marginal 
no!e,  and  that  often  in  pencil  mark.  On  the  whole  the  accounts  were  in  a 
stole  of  great  uncertainty  and  confusion,  and  so  extensive  and  tomplicated 
the  transactions  which  they  embraced,  that  it  was  deemed  wholly  iinpracti- 
cable  for  your  committee,  by  their  own  personal  labor,  to  balance  the 
books,  and  arrive  at  any  result  at  all  approaching  to  accuracy.  It  was  the 
more  difficult,  as  the  ordinary  books  of  entry  do  not  appear  to  contain  the 
materials  for  a  full  and  fair  adjustment  of  the  accounts  which  they  purport 
to  exhibit:  as,  for  example, 

Your  committee  called  for  the  account  of  James  Reeside,  and  it  was 
shown  to  them  on  the  leger,  where  there  appeared  a  balance  against  him  on 
t')e  1st  of  April,  1S34,  of  $54,369  07.  The  accounting  officer?,  however,, 
informed  your  committee  that  the  leger  did  not  present  [all  the  credits  to 
.which  Mr.  Reeside  was  entitled;  and  they  have  since  exhibited  an  account 
xontaialng  many  credits,  by  which  there  appears  to  be  a  balance  in  hi.* 


CS6] 


2 


favor  on  the  Isl  of  July,  1834,  of  ^7,529  5r),  making  a  diflerence  in  tlna 
single  account  of  about  §6 1,000.  Some  of  the  credit?,  it  is  true,  bear  date 
between  the  Ist  of  April  and  1st  of  July,  but  a  large  part  of  ihe  amount  iai 
iTiacIc  up  of  entries  which,  if  entitled  at  all  to  a  place  in  the  account, 
belonged  lo  a  dale  prior  to  the  1st  April,  1834.  The  correctness  of  tliose 
several  credits  will  be  considered  in  another  part  of  this  report. — (See  Doc. 
No.  1.)  . 

The  account  of  Edv.-in  Porter,  as  if  appeared  on  tlie  Icgcr,  showed  a 
balance  a^ainsthim  of  S21,095  99.  — (See  L\)c.  No.  2.) 

'   The    acoovint   of  R.    C.    Stockton,    showed    a    balance   against    him    of 
S7S,170  4S.— (Sec  Doc.  No.  3.) 

All  these  balaiices  were  5aid  lo  be  incorrect;  but  if  they  be  so,  they  stand 
upon  the  leger. in  such  a  manner  as  to  mislead  those  wi.o  rely  upon  the 
books  merely,  as  evidence  of  the  condition  of  the  department.  The  law 
expressly  forbids  an  advance  to  any  contractor  in  anticipation  of  his 
services,  unless  it  be  authorized  by  act  of  Congress.  And  yet,  if  the 
books  stale  the  matter  truly,  there  was  advanced  to,  and  due  from,  con- 
tractors, on  the  fif^t  of  April,  1834,  $302,655  61. 

Tiii.N  confused  and  imperfect,  if  not  erroneous  situation  of  the  account.^ 
togetlTcr  v.-ith  the  want  of  a  balance  sheet,  brougbt  up  to  stated  periods, 
rendered  it  a  burdensome  task  to  put  these  books  in  such  order  that  your 
commiucc  couid  ascertain  by  their  inspection,  and  by  the  testimony  of  wit- 
nesses,-wi.nt  was  the  actual  condition  of  the  department,  and  the  balance 
for  or  ag.vinst  it  on  the  day  to  which  it  was  proposed  to  bring  down  the  exa- 
mination. 

When  your  committee  presented  their  last  report,  they  had  no  adequals 
idea  of  the  extent  of  tiiis  labor.  They  supposed  that  the  balances  which 
appeared  upon  the  hooks  were  in  all  cases  the  frue  balances,  and  that  the 
simple  process  of  addition  and  subtraction  was  sufficent  to  solve  the  pro- 
blem.     In  this,  however,  they  were  mistaken. 

But  it  i)cing  desirable  that  the  actual  state  of  these  accounts  should  be  as- 
certained., your  committee,  as  the  best  m£>de  of  arriving  at  it,  employed  two 
individuals,  skiltul  accountants,  approved  by  their  unanimous  assent,  to 
examine  ilie  books,  and  j)repare  a  general  balance  sheet.  Those  accountants 
liave,  since  about  the  23d  day  of  September,  1834,  been  diligently  en- 
gaged and  still  jgrc  diligently  engaged  in  their  work,  which,  when  completed 
and  carefully  exaiiiined,  will  be  laid  bclbre  the  Senate.  Until  that  be  done, 
any  report  which  your  committee  can  present,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  finances, 
jiiust  necessarily  be  conjectural  and  imperfect. 

The  state  of  the  finances,  as  set  forth  in  their  former  report,  was  drawn 
partly  from  the  statement  of  the  officers  of  the  department,  and  partly  from 
an  examination  of  the  books  by  the  committee  or  some  of  its  members. 
The  san-ic  must  be  tlie  case  new,  with  this  difference  only^  that  a  greater 
familiarity  with  the  books,  and  tiic  possession  of  a  number  of  statements, 
made  out  at  dillereat  periods,  and  some  additional  items  furnished,  enable 
your  committee  to  compare  and  contrast  them;  and  although  no  one  is,  in 
their  opinion,  to  be  enlircl}'  rekied  ©n,  from  the  whole  to  elicit  something 
near  the  truth  of  the  case. 

Ill  their  comparative  view  of  the  revenue  and  expenditures  of  the  de- 
partment, for  the  next  four  years  preceding,  and  the  four  years  next  following, 
the  time  at  which  it  was  placed  under  the  superintendence  of  the  present  Post- 
master General, your  committee  noticed  the  difference  between  the  statements 
of  Mr,  McLean,  the  late  Postmaster  ftcneial,  and  the  present  incumbent, 


TTTT 


as  to  the  amount  of  available  funds  on  hand  on  the  1st  July,  1829,  bat 
could  not   then  pronounce  with  certainty  upon  the  correctness  of  either. 

The  amount  of  surplus  funds  left  on  hand,  according  to  the  statement  of 
Mr.  McLean,  was      -  -  .  .  -  -.$289,140  17 

The  amount,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Barry,  was  -  -     230,489  00 


Making  a  difference  of       -  -  -  -  -  $  58,651    17 

Which,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  former  Postmaster  General,  came 
into   the  hands  of  his   successor;  but  which,  according  to   the  reports  and 
statements  of  the  present   Postmaster  General,  never    did   come  into  his 
hands.    Your  committee  considered  this  a  subject  ivorthy  of  a  more  particu- 
]ar  investigation. 

Mr.   Barry,    in  his  rejDort   to   the   President,  of  the  24th  of  November, 
1829,   says,  that  there  appears  a   balance  in  the  books   of  the  department 
of  -  -  -  -  -  -  .     S541,6S0 

Of  which  there  are  old  balances,  considered  desperate,  $284,289 
Postages  prior  to  July  1,  1S2S,  since  found  to  be  des- 
perate        -*.__..     22,235 
Counterfeit  money  on  hand    -  -  -  $2,634 

Notes  on  broken  banks  -  _  .,     1,672 

4,306 

310,830 

Leaving,  as  the  whole  amount  of  available    funds,  above   the 

amount  of  debts  due  by  the  department  ...  $230,850 

And  in  his  report  to  the  President  of  the  30th  November,  1833,  the  first 
in  w'hich  he  acknowledges  a  deficit  in  the  funds,  he,  by  way  of  accounting 
for  that  deficit  in  part,  says:  "On  the  30th  of  June,  1829,  which  was 
the  close  of  the  first  quarter  in  which  I  had  assumed  the  functions  of  the  de- 
partment, the  expenses  which  had  been  incurred  for  transporting  the  mail 
were  ;g64,24S  76  more  than  the  amount  stated  in  my  report  to  that  day." 
Thus  leaving  the  inference  irresistible,  if  his  reports  from  the  beginning 
were  correct,  that  the  surplus  available  funds  on  the  1st  of  July,  1829, 
were  .-----..  §230,850 
Less  by  -..-.._        64,248 


And  therefore  but  -----  -  Si 66,602 

Before  taking  into  consideralKon  this  iiem  of  S64,24S,  discovered  by  the 
Postmaster  General,  and  reported  to  the  President  on  the  30th  November,, 
1833,  your  committee  will  examine  briefly  the  discrepancies  between  the. 
above  statements;  and  they  believe  it  is  now  in  their  power  to  show  v^if^ere 
the  error  lies. 

The  present  Postmaster  General,  in  his  report  to  the  President  of  the 
24th  November,  1829,  exhibits  as  the  whole  amount  of  balances  apparently 
on  hand,  which  includes  ail  debts,  good  and  bad,  which  have  accrued  from 
the  beginning  of  the  Government,  and  which  remained  due,  at  -  $541,680 
Of  this  he  says  there  are  of  desperate  debts,  and  counterfeit  notes, 

and  notes  on  broken  banks      -  -  .  -  -      310,830 


Leaving  arailabU         .  .  -  .  -  S?230,SflC 


[  86  ]  4 

In  order  to  determine  whether  this  statement,  if  correct  when  made,  re. 
mains  so  at  this  day,  your  committee  called  before  them  Mr.  Hand,  the 
solicitor  of  the  department,  and  required  of  him  a  statement  of  the  amount 
of  the  debts  which  were  due  to  the  department  on  the  1st  day  of  July,  1629,. 
which  remains  unpaid  at  this  time;  and  we  have  his  report,  under  oath,  that 
jt  amounts  to  about  ii5l33,29S. — (See  Doc.  No.  4.)  There  was  presented  to 
your  committee  byO.  B.  Brown,  chief  clerk,  one  other  paper,  showing  the 
amount  carried  to  bad  debts,  profit  and  loss,  and  suspense  account;  by  which  it 
appears  that  there  has  been  carried  to  those  several  accounts,  since  the  1st  July, 
1S29,  j^30,S89;  a  part  of  which  may  be  chargeable  to  the  balance  reported  on 
ihat  day.  Your  committee  cannot  determine  what  part;  ihey,  therefore,  to 
avoid  the  possibility  of  injustice  to  the  present  officers  of  that  department, 
place  the  M»/<o/e  *r/w  to  that  account;  which,  added  to  tlie  8133,293,  re- 
ported by  Mr.  Hand  as  still  due,  amounts  to  $164,187.  This  deducted 
from  the  sum  of  §541,680,  the  whole  amount  of  debts  due  and  cash  on  hand 
at  that  date,  leaves  jS377,492  as  the  amount  of  funds  at  that  time  on  hand,, 
which  were  available,  or  which  have  since  been  made  available  by  collec- 
tions. This  exceeds  the  amount  reported  by  Mr.  McLean  as  available,  by 
S88,352,  and  exceeds  the  amount  acknowledged  by  Mr.  Barry  to  be  so,  by 
5gl46,642. 

Your  committee  have  carefully  examined  all  the  subsequent  reports  of 
the  present  Postmaster  General,  to  see  if,  in  any  of  them,  he  has  noticed  the 
increased  amount  of  that  sum  which  was  made  available,  and  they  do  not 
find  that  he  has,  but  that  he  leaves  it  still  as  he  left  it  in  November,  1S29; 
and,  in  his  report  of  the  30th  November,  1833,  when  he  first  raises  the  ad- 
ditional item  of  g64,24S  against  his  predecessor,  he  says  nothing  to  correct 
this  error,  into  which  at  that  time  the  result  must  have  shown  that  he  him- 
self had  fallen.  What  disposition  has  been  made  of  the  sum  of  § 
so  collected  of  old  balances,  above  the  amount  reported  as  available,  your 
committee  are  not  yet  able  to  determine. 

It  will  be  recollected  that  in  a  series  of  resolutions  passed  by  the  Senate, 
on  the  11th  day  of  March  last,  it  was,  among  other  things, 

^^  Resolved,  That  the  Postmaster  General  be  directed  to  transmit  to  the 
Senate  a  statement  of  the  items  which  make  up  the  sum  of  §64,248  76,  which, 
in  his  annual  report  of  November  30,  1833,  he  charges  as  the  exces^s  of 
expenses  incurred  for  transporting  the  mail  prior  to  the  30th  June,  1829, 
over  and  above  the  amount  stated  in  his  report  to  the  last  named  day." 
But  the  information  called  for  by  this  resolution  was  not  furnished.  Sjiortly 
after  your  committee  commenced  their  session  in  the  recess,  they  passed  a 
resolution  requiring  the  same  information,  a  copy  of  which  was  handed  by 
their  secretary  to  the  Postmaster  General  on  the  day  of  October,  1834, 

to  which  no  answer  was  given.     Your  committee  did  again  on  the  day 

of  January,  1835,  specially  enforce  it  upon  the  attention  of  the  department, 
and  on  the  24th  day  of  January,  1835,  just  before  they  were  prepared  to 
report,  they  received  the  annexed  answer,  marked  Doc.  No.  5,  by  which  it  ap- 
pears that  nearly  the  whole  sum  of  v$64,248  76  was  allowed  anil  paid  by 
the  present  Postmaster  General  on  old  conti'acts  as  extras.  The  amount  of 
this,  which  was  fairly'  and  justly  due  to  them,  if  any,  cannot  now  be  as- 
certained without  very  great  labor,  and  a  separate  examination  of  each 
case.     Some  of  these  cases  were  noticed  by  your  committee,  in  the  course 


5  [  8S  ] 

of  their  investigation,  and  have  place  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  report. 
They  are  not  of  a  character  to  recommend  themselves  to  the  favorable  con- 
sideration of  the  Senate. 

The  materials  from  which  your  committee  prepared  the  slate  of  the 
finances  of  the  department  exhibited  in  their  former  report,,  were,  first: 
The  statement  of  0.  B.  Brown,  clerk  of  the  Division  of  Finance,  which  is 
as  follows: 

Post  Ojffice  Depautment, 
Division  of  Finance,  April  24,  1834. 

Sir:  The  following  I  believe  to  be  as  correct  an  estimate  as  can  be  made 
of  the  present  condition  of  the  finances  of  this  department: 
Amount  due  to  contractors,  as  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained  by  estimate  prior 

to  April  1,  1S34  .  .  .  ,  .  ^190,000  00 

From  .January  1  to  April  1,  1834  .  .  .  445,000  00 


Total  amount  due  to  contractors               .  .              .               635,000  00 
Amount  due  to  banks  on  the  1  Itli  April, 

1S34,  viz.,  loans         .               .              .  $325,000  00 

Over  drafts  on  banks      .               .              .  126,599  48 


451,599  48 


Total  amount  due  by  the  department      .  .  .         §1,(IB6,599  43 

The  available  amount  due  from   postmasters  is  as   fol- 
lows, viz. : 
To  January  I,  1S34        .  .  .       i?! 300, 000  00 

From  January  1  to  April  1,  1834  .         500,000  00 


800,000  00> 


Balance  against  the  department  ...  S286,59&  4S 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN. 
Sworn  to. 
Hon.  Fei>ix  Gkundy, 

Chairman  of  the  Coiyiinitlee,  4'C. 

Your  committee  assumed  the  above  statement  as  correct,  so  far  as  it  re- 
lates to  the  debts  due  from  the  department,  the  aggregate  of  which  is  there 
set  down  at  $1,036,599  48. 

But  they  received  from  the  Postmaster  General,  on  the  26th  December, 
1834,  another  more  particular  statement  of  the  financial  condition  of  the 
department,  which  they  have  herewith  presented,  marked  Doc.  No.  6.  from 
which  they  will  now  extract  the  several  corresponding  items,  and  compare 
them  with  those  in  tlie  above  statement  of  0.  B.  Brown. 

And  1st.  The  amount  <\i\Q  to  contractors  on  the  1st  day  of  April,  1834, 
which  the  last  named  statement  presents  as  follows: 

1st.     To    old   contractors,    agents,    and   on   miscellaneous 
accounts  prior  to  1st  of  January,  1S33,  which  amounts  to  ^3,470  53 


[  86  3  6 

2d.  To  contractors  whose  accounts  were  still  ninning,  or 
had  not  expired  prior  to  January  1st,  1S33,  lor  services 
performed  prior  to  January  1,  1834        .  .  .  223,484  95 

There  was  due  on  the  1st  April,  1834,  for  transportation, 

which  had  not  yet  been  audited,  to  contractors  .  49,487  80 

The  expense  of  transportation  from  January  1st  to  April 

1st,  1S34,  was  .....  454,514  22 


Making  the  amount  due  for  transportatfon  .  .  730,957  50 

The  balance  due  to  banks  above  the  amount  of  depo^'tes     .  451,599  48 


Making  the  whole  amount  of  debt  .  .  .       1,182,556  98 

More  by  $96,000  than  by  the  statement  of  the  24th  of  April,  1834. 

But  it  was  the  amount  of  available  funds  only,  as  set  forth  in  that  state- 
nient,  that  your  committee  felt  themselves  required  to  examine.  They  are 
there  given  in  round  numbers  thus: 

"  Available  amount  due  from  postmasters  is  estimated  as  follows,  to  wit: 

To  January  1st,  1834               .              .              .       §300,000 
From  January  1st  to  April  1st,  1834                 .         500,000 
„■  800,000  00'' 

I  ■=— 

H  Ey  the  statement  of  the  Postmaster  General 
S  of  the  26th  December, '1834,  the  whole 
;ja  balance  of  available  funds,  due  from  post- 
""         masters  prior  to  the  1st  of  January,  1834, 

was  .....        g241,6i0  47 

And  the    net  proceeds  of  postages  from   the 

1st  January,  1834,  to  the  1st  April,  1834, 

was  ^496,677  21,  of  which  was  paid  to  t!ie 

department  prior  to  April  Isf,  $1 18,489  50, 

leaving  the  balance  .  .  .  378,187   71 

Making  the  whole  sum  then  due  for  postages     .  .  $619,798   18 

Which,  if  there  were  no  items  introduced  to  vary  the  amount  except  the?e, 
the  only  ones  exhibited  in  (he  statement  of  the  chief  clerk,  in  April  last, 
T/ould  leave  the  dc])artment  insolvent,  according  to  its  own  showing,  by 
Jg562,758  80. 

But  your  committee,  not  being  satisfied  that  the  sum  slated  to  be  due  from 
postmasters  was  correct,  Ihey  caused  the  books  which  show  (he  amount  of 
deposites  made  b}'  them  in  banks  to  the  credit  of  the  dcpaitment  within  the 
last  quarter  of  1S33,  and  the  first  qi.iarter  of  1834,  to  be  carefully  examined, 
hvA  the  amount  nccuralely  stated.  They  also  directed  to  be  ]>repared,  by 
;ne  principal  pay  clerk,  a  statement  showing  the  amount  of  checks  which 
vere  drawn  on  postmasters  within  each  of  the  before  named  quarters,  for 
postages  accruing  within  said  quarters.  That  statement  from  the  pay  clerk 
your  committee  have  not  yet  received,  but  .^rom  the  evidence  before  them,  it 


7  [86] 

appears  that  the  net  proceeds  of  postages  within  the  quarter  ending  the  3lst 
December,  1S33,  was  .....        §467,449  00    j 

The  amount  derposiled  by  postmasters  within  that  quarter  .  325. 4S I  29 

Net  proceeds  of  postages  above   the  amount  of  deposites  i^_ 

within  that  quarter  .  .  .  .  .       $l4l,96,7i4l 

The  net  j^roceeds  of  postages  within  the  quarter  ending  the 

31st  March,  1833,  was  .  ,  .       "      .        $496,677  21 

Deposites  in  banks  by  poslmasters  within  tliat  quarter        ■  324,954  76 

Amount  of  net  proceeds  not  so  deposited  .  .        §171,723  45 

Leaves  the  balance  of  postages  accruing  in  tliose  two  quar- 
ters which  was  not  deposited  l)y  postmasters  on  the  1st 
April,  1S34         ......        $313.690  16 

The  statement  of  the  finances  (see  Doc.  No.  6,)  made  by  the  Postmaster 
General  to  your  committee,  on  the  2Gth  December  last,  appears  to  tiieni 
erroneous  in  this,  that  it  gives  the  amount  due  on  the  31st  March,  1S34,  for 
postages  accruing  within  the  quarter  ending  that  day,  at  S37S,167   71 

Whereas,  it  appears  by  taking  the  amount  shown  to  have  been 
deposited  in  banks  wilhin  that  quarter  from  the  amount  which 
accrued  therein,  that  the  wlioie  amoiuit  remaining  due  on  that 
day  of  that  quarter's  proceeds  did  not  exceed  .  S171,722  45 

By  a  siniibr  process,  it  is  ascertained  tiiat  the  whole  amount  due 

of  the  next  preceding  quarter  was  no  more  than         .  ^141,967  71 

Thus  making    the  whole  amount    of  postages  which  accrued  in 

those  two'quarters,  due  on  the  1st  day  of  April,  1834,  $313,690    16 

Which,  deducted  from  the  whole  amount  of  debts  admitted  by 
the  statement  of  the  Postmaster  General,  of  the  26lh  Decem- 
ber, shown  to  be  due  from  the  department,  would  leave  its 
debts  greater  than  its  credits,  in  this  part  of  its  available  funds 
by  ....'..  SfOS,S66  83 

Theavailahlc  funds  v.-hicli  accrued  prior  to  the  Isl  of  Oclooei",  IS33,  and 
vi?hich  remained  uncollected,  were  not  taken  into  the  account  by  your  com- 
mittee, in  their  forn^icr  report,  because  it  was  out  of  their  povver  to  examine 
or  estimate  them,  ilence  the  balance  by  them  struck  is  and  was  expressly  ' 
stated  to  be  subject  to  that  reduction.  Such,  too,  must  be  the  case  with  this 
statement,  as  your  committee  have  no  means  in  their  power  of  fixir.g  its 
amount  until  they  obtain  the  report  of  their  accountants.  The  snni,  however, 
cannot  be  large,  unless  there  have  been  great  neglect  in  compelling  the  p^}- 
rnent  of  the  moneys  received  by  deputy  postmasters. 

There  is  one  other  item  introduced  into  the  statement  of  the  20th  Dece"i- 
ber,  1834,  of  which  yoisr  comm.ittec  knew  nothing  until  since  their  former 
report,  and  did  not  even  suspect  its  existence.  It  is  a  ''bala^lce  against  co!i- 
tractors  for  payments  made  them  prior  to  the  1st  April,  1S34,  for  tiic 
current  services  of  the  quarter  which  ended  that  day,  and  for  prior  services 
which  had  not  yet  bepn  placed  to  their  credit,  ^284,897  38."  Your  com- 
n-'ittce  did  not  suppose  a  fund  of  this   character   and  amount  existed  to  t!:o 


[  86  ]  8 

credit  of  the  department,  because  they  knew  by  former  statements,  that 
there  were  very  large  sums  actually  due  to  contractors,  for  services  fullj'^ 
and  faithfully  performed,  in  previous  quarters,  which  tlie  department  was 
bound,  ill  good  faith  and  in  justice,  to  pay  promptly.  Those  sums,  actually 
due,  were  not  paid  for  want  of  funds.  Large  sums  were  also  borrowed  from 
banks  on  interest;  and  it  seemed  inconceivable  that,  under  these  circum- 
stances, so  large  a  sum  of  money  should  have  been  advanced  to  a  few  (^oil- 
tractors  before  they  were  entitled  to  receive  it  by  the  terms  of  their  cou- 
tracts.  But  the  present  investigation  has  satisfied  your  committee  that  very 
large  sums  were,  and  still  are  due,  from  contractors,  for  illegal  payments 
and  allowances  of  money;  and  that  this  sum,  at  least,  and  probably  a  much 
larger  sum,  ought  *o  be  reclaimed  from  them,  and  placed  to  the  credit  of 
the  department.  Deduct  this  from  the  above  balance,  and  it  leaves  S.5S3,- 
9(39  44  deficit  in  the  funds  of  the  department,  as  they  now  appear  on  the 
evidence  before  the  committee,  independently  of  the  arrearage  of  postages 
wliich  accrued  prior  to  the  1st  October,  1834;  and  independently  also  of  the 
amount  drawn  on  postmasters  within  the  last  quarter  of  1833,  and  1st  quarter 
of  1834;  which  two  sums,  standing  on  different  sides  of  tlip  account,  ma}^ 
nearly  balance  each  other.  The  exact  state  of  the  finances  must,  however, 
be  left  to  the  report  of  the  accountants  employed  by  your  committee.  The 
investigation  of  the  committee,  thus  far,  corrobroates  their  former  report  as 
to  the  insolvency  of  the  department. 

It  appears  by  a  letter  from  the  Postmaster  General  to  the  chairman  of 
your  commitleey  in  answer  to  a  resolution  of  the  29th  of  September,  1834^ 
that  between  the  ist  April,  1829,  and  the  1st  Sept(MTiber,  1834,  there  had 
been  tliirteen  hundred  and  forty  postmasters  removed  from  office.  Public 
opinion  ascribes  tbose  removals,  with  few  exceptions,  to  motives  of  party 
policy.  This  subject  seemed  to  your  committee  to  require  investigation; 
and  they  thought,  and  still  think  that  it  fell  within  the  scope  of  the  autho- 
rity confen-ed  on  them  by  the  resolutions  under  which  they  acted;  and  that 
it  was  one  of  those  subjects  into  which  the  Senate,  as  a  branch  of  the  legis- 
lative power,  had  aright  to  direct  an  investigation.  If,  indeed,  the  extensive 
patronage  of  this  department  were  so  wielded  as  to  influence,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, the  political  actions  of  men;  if  its  numerous  offices  were  made  a  sub- 
ject of  sale  and  barter  for  party  influence  and  political  power;  if  it  were  a 
part  of  the  established  system,  that  honest  men  and  faithful  officers  should 
be  removed  from  office,  for  no  other  reason  than  that  they  had  ventured  to 
be  freemen,  and  exercise  the  rights  of  freemen  and  American  citizens  at  the 
polls;  and  that  their  places  should  he  tilled  by  men  having  no  other  quali- 
fieations  than  those  of  efficient  partizuns  and  supporters  of  the  men  in  power, 
it  was  of  the  first  importance  that  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  mischief 
should  be  known  to  the  Legislature  and  the  people  of  the  country;  and  lliat 
a  remedy  should  be  apj)lied  by  law,  to  check,  and  if  possible  eradicate  the 
evil. 

It  was  represented  to  the  members  of  your  committee,  from  sources  enti- 
tled to  consideration,  that  there  were  many  cases  in  which  those  things  had 
been  done.  That  deputy  postmasters,  upright  and  honorable  men  and 
faithful  officers,  had  been  removed  for  no  other  known  cause  than  that  of 
their  political  opinions;  and  that  there  had  been  appointed  in  their  stead 
active  political  partisans,  notoriously  deficient  in  talent,  and  destitute  of  in- 


9  [  86  ] 

tegrity;  and  who,  since  their  appointment,  had  appropriated  the  whole 
proceeds  of  their  offices  to  themselves,  first  neglecting  to  account,  and  at 
last  absconding  wiih  the  funds;  and  that,  in  some  instances,  the  officers  cf 
the  department  had  neglected  to  prosecute,  until  their  sureties  were  fully 
dischaiged  by  lapse  of  time. 

Herron's  Case. 
One  of  this  class  of  cases  was  that  of  John  Herron,  who  was  appointed, 
postmaster  at  Putnam,  Ohio,  in  the  place  of  Henry  Saffiard,  removed.  Your 
committee  called  in  the  first  place  for  a  statement  of  the  date  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  Herron,  the  time  he  held  the  office,  the  state  of  his  accounts  with 
the  department,  and  the  measures,  if  an}',  which  had  been  taken  to  collect 
such  balance  as  might  appear  against  him.  In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  the 
following  communications  were  receive-J  on  the  23d  September,  1834. 


General  Post  Office,  Sept.  20,  1S34. 

Sir:  It  appears  from  the  books  and  documents  of  this  office,  that  in  July, 
1829,  John  Herron  was  appointed  postmaster  at  Putnam,  Ohio.  That  he 
continued  to  hold  that  office  till  November,  1831,  when  he  was  dismissed 
from  it  b}-  the  discontinuance  of  the  office  on  the  10th  November,  1831. 

The  office  was  discontinued,  as  appears  from  the  files,  because  the  post- 
master failed  to  make  his  quarterly  returns,  and  he  persisted  in  the  neglect 
to  do  so  after  correspondence  had,  and  notice  given  him,  and  because  there 
was  no  person  recommended  to  be  appointed  his  successor. 

He  enclosed  to  the  department  !3l25,  on  account  of  his  office,  in  a  letter, 
dated  18th  May  1830,  consisting  of  notes  of  a  bank  or  banks  in  Ohio.  The 
bank  in  this  place  refused  to  receive  them,  and  the  money  was  therefore  re- 
turned to  Herron.  Except  this  assay  to  make  a  payment,  he  does  not 
appear  ever  to  have  paid  any  thing  over  to  the  department,  nor  to  have  ren- 
dered any  accounts. 

His  accounts  for  the  whole  time  of  holding  the  office,  have  been  estimated 
according  to  law,  at  $558  64.      The  measures  taken  to  effect  a  settlement 
will  appear  from  the  accompanying  statement  of  the  acting  solicitor. 
V^'ry  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN. 
Hon.  Felix  Gru.vdv, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Post  Office  <and  Post  Roads. 


Putnam,  Ohio — John  Herron,  late  Postmaster. 

Solicitor's  Office,   September  20,  1834. 

The  office  was  discontinued  on  the  3d  November,  1831,  because  the  post- 
masier  had  failed  to  render  accounts;  and  no  person  was  recommended  as 
his  successor,  after  due  notice  given. 

A  draft  was  made  on  him  October  1st,  1831,  in  favor  of  Jarvis,  Pike 
&  Co.,  for  $500,  and  returned  unpaid,  March  6,  1832. 

An  estimated  statement  of  his  account  was  sent  to  him  on  the  2d  July, 
a  * 


[  86  ]  10 

3  832,  with  notice  to  pay  a  draft  for  the  amount.  A  draft  was  entered 
on  the  pay  book  in  the  3d  quarter  of  1832,  but  not  sent,  the  contractor's  pay 
on  that  route  being  only  $90  per  quarter. 

On  the  18th  of  February,  1833,  D.  M.  Sellers,  postmaster  at  Putnam 
was  requested  to  call  on  him,  an<l  Nathaniel  Ayres  and  John  Kirk,  his  sure- 
ties for  payment.      To  this  letter  no  reply  was  received. 

On  the  17th  of  May,  1833,  a  copy  of  his  account  was  sent  to  liim  at 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  urgiiig  payment,  and  threatening  suit  in  default  thereof. 
No  notice  having  been  taken  of  this  call  by  Herron,  on  the  IDth  day  of 
August,  1833,  a  letter  was  ^addressed  to  Samuel  Glass,  po'stmsster  at  Putnam, 
Ohio,  to  notify  Herron's  sureties  to  deposife  the  am.ount  due  in  the  United 
States  Bank  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  'J^hi^  notice  was  served  on  the  sureties 
as  per  letter  of  S.  Glass  of  101  h  September,  1833. 

On  the  18th  November,  1833,  the  postmaster  (S.  Glass)  was  addressed 
as  {()  the  residence  and  solvency  of  Herron.  A  reply  was  received,  stating 
that  he  lived  in  Clermont  county,  near  Batavia,  Ohio. 

On  the  6th  January,  1834,  a  letter  was  written  to  J,  Pegg,  postmaster,  at 
Batavia,  and  an  answer  received,  advising  this  office  that  after  dili- 
gent inquiry,  no  such  person  as  John  Herron  could  be  found  m  the  county. 

The  account  of  Herron  is  still  open,  and  suit  will  be  instituted  against  him 
'vhenever  he  can  be  found. 

J .  G .  WHIT WEL L,  ^ami,^  SoUcitar. 

Henry  Safiord,  the  former  postmaster,  who  was  removed  to  make  room  for 
John  Herron,  the  individual  concerning  whom  the  above  proceedings  were 
ha<i,  was  known  to  one  member  of  your  committee  as  a  man  of  strict 
integrity,  and  o(  ability  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office.  With  a  view, 
iherefore,  of  ascertaining  on  what  ground  a  ch.angeof  olhcers  so  unfortunate 
for  the  public  service  had  been  made,  your  comuiiltee,  on  the  22d  Sep- 
tember, 1834,  by  resolution  asked  for  an  inspection  of  ail  tiic  original  let- 
ters and  papers  in  the  General  Post  Oilice  concerning  th.e  removal  of  Saf- 
K:rd  and  the  appointment  of  Herron  as  postmaster,  at  Putnam,  Ohio.  And 
on  the  3d  day  of  October  a  letter  was  received  from  the  Postmaster 
General,  in  reply,  in  which  he  denies  the  rijiht  of  j'our  committee  to  inspect 
tiiose  papers,  and  refuses  to  submit  them  to  their  examinati-on.  This  letter, 
within  a  iQ\w  days  thereafter,  we  know  not  by  what  authority,  was  publish- 
ed in  the  Globe. 

Your  committee  did  not  think  it  incumbent  on  tliem  to  enter  into  a  dis- 
cussion with  the  Postmaster  General  on  the  subject  of  their  respective 
rights  and  duties,  nor  do  they  now  think  it  proper,  in  this  paper,  to  examine 
them,  or  to  blend  an  argument  on  constitutional  law  witl".  the  facts  which 
they  were  required  to  examine  and  report  to  the  Senate. 

This  refusal  of  the  Postmaster  General  to  permit  the  inspection  of  these 
X>apers  on  alleged  constitnlional  grounds,  which  applied  aliiie  to  the  whole 
class  of  cases  referred  to,  which  rest  on  the  same  principles,  of  course  put 
an  end  to  this  branch  of  the  investigation.  Finding  the  doors  closed  upon 
Ihem  hercj  they  turned  their  atlention  to  other  subjects  of  inquiry,  touching 
the  cond^on  of  the  dei)artment  and  the  management  of  its  concerns. 

But  in^he  examination  of  other  subjects,  one  case  of  appointment  and 
re.r.oval  fell   under   their   o'^scrvation,  and   ihcy  deem   it   proper  to  state 


II  [  S6  ] 

the  facts  and  append  the  '^videncc  connecfcvl  with  it.  It  may  serve  as  one 
specimen  of  the  mode  of  operation  in  such  cases,  and  the  principles  and 
:notives  of  the  parties,  and  of  the  department. 

Wyman's  Cask. 

William  Wyman  had  for  some  time  been  postmaster  in  Lowell,  Massa- 
••setts.  He -was  removed,  snd  Eliphalet  Case  appointed  in  his  place.  Th» 
committee  called  before  them  Colonel  S.  A.  Coburn,  an  intelligent  citizen 
of  Lowell,  who  mingled  hourl}-  among  its  inhabitants,  and  had  constant  in- 
tercourse with  the  post  office,  (see  Doc.  No  7,)  and  the  following  question  was 
propounded  to  him:  <'  Do  you  know  Mr.  Wyman,  fornicr  postmaster  of  this 
place?  Whatwashis  characteras  postmaster.'"'  To  this  interrogator}-  ihechair- 
nian  of  the  committee  objected,  but  as  one  of  the  members  of  the  committee 
happened  to  be  absent,  agreed  tliat  the  answer  to  the  question  might  be  taken, 
suljject  to  the  opinion  of  the  absent  member.  The  answer  was  in  the  fol- 
lowing words:  ''I  have  known  him  very  well,  and  I  never  heard  his  cha- 
racter impeached,  and  aever  heard  a  complaint  against  him  as  postmaster.'"' 
In  consequence  of  the  objection  of  the  chairman,  and  the  situation  of  the 
committee,  this  inquiry  was  not  further  pursued;  hut  the  committee  do  not 
doubt  that  the  evidence' of  Colonel  Coburn  presents  the  truth  in  regard  to 
the  character  of  Mr.  W^  This  removal,  and  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Case,  was  effected  in  this  manner  :  jNIr.  Case  was  the  editor  of  the  Lowell 
Mercury,  a  zealous  administration  newspaper,  and  received  for  his  services 
as  editor  S300  [)er  annum.  He  also  held  the  press  for  somie  tune  under  a 
deed  of  trust,  to  secure  him  for  a  claim  which  he  had  upon  it  to  the  nmount 
of  ^650;  and  after  this  was  satisded,  the  balance  belonged  to  Mr.  Thomas 
Billings,  its  owner.  Pvlr.  Case  paid  a  visit  to  Washington,  and  On  his 
return  informed  Mr.  Billings  that  he  "  had  made  application  to  be  made 
postmaster;  he  had  not  got  the  office,  but  did  not  doubt  he  would  get  it;"  antiif 
he  was  appointed,  as  he  expected,  he  v/ould  continue  to  edit  the  paper  as  for- 
merly, without  charging  any  tb.ing.  (See  Doc.  No.  S.)  After  this,  a  printed  no- 
tice was  issued,  calling  a  mealing  at  Mr,  Case's  private  room,  of  the 
IJemncratic  Commiilee  for  calling  Cducuses^  4'C,  in  toiun.  This  meet- 
ing was  held,  "Mr.  Case  was  present,  and  it  was  stated  by  some  one  that  there 
had  been  complaints  matle  againi-t  the  postmaster;  that  he  would  be  un- 
doubtedly removed;  and  proposed  that  Mr.  Case  should  be  recommended 
as  his  successor,  which  was  accordirigly  done."  T!ie  petition  for  t'r.e  ap- 
pointment was  '-signed  by  a  part  of  tiie  committee  of  Lowell."  Mr.  Bil- 
Jings,  one  of  the  committee,  attended,  but  did  not  sign  the  petition;  and 
Thereupon  Mr.  V/yman  was  removed,  and  Mr.  Case  appointed,  acted  as 
postmaster,  and  continued  his  services  as  editor;  and  Mr.  Billings,  who  had 
.an  interest  in  the  press  and  its  proceeds,  added,  that  he  did  not  know 
ihst  Mr.  C.  had  "  cliarged  any  thing"  for  these  services  since  his  ap- 
pointment. In  this  mode,  one  editor  of  a  party  newspaper  has  beea 
supported  by  the  patronage  of  the  department.  And  this  postmaster  has  not 
failed  to  profit  by  other  advantages  from  his  po<t  office  for  the  benefit  of 
iils  paper.  The  wrappers  of  letters  and  packages  wliich  it  is  customary 
to  retain  in  the  oiHces  atid  use  for  sending  other  letters  and  paclca^cs,  as  long 
as  they  can  be  used  for  that  purpose,  have  not  been  so  usecWJP  him.  It 
has  been  his  "constant  practice"  to  send  "regularly  on  every  Thursday, 
all  the  wraj^persand  papers  received  from  other  post  oOices  as  envelopes  to 


C  86  ]  12 

the  printing  office,  to  be  used  in  wrapping  his  newspapers.  Mr.  Case 
thought  they  made  excellent  wrappers  for  the  Mercury.  Among  these 
papers  were  sometimes  found  articles  of  another  description.  His  apprer^- 
tice  in  the  newspaper  office  stated  that  he  had  four  times  found  among  them 
"  letters  directed  to  the  office."  Once  there  was  a  package  of  letters,  how 
many  he  could  not  tell,  directed  to  Portland,  >Maine;  as  soon  as  he  discover- 
ed them  he  returned  them  to  the  post  office. — (See  Doc.  No.  9.) 

A  practice  has  of  late  prevailed  extensively  in  this  department  of  adver- 
tising proposals  for  carrying  the  mail  on  the  principal  mail  routes  in  a  differ- 
ent manner  from  that  in  which  it  is  in  fact  to  he  carried;  of  receiving 
bids  for  carrying  it  in  a  difierent  manner  from  that  which  is  advertised; 
which  are  called  ^^  improved  bids ;^'  of  accepting  the  bids  as  m^<\e  (til  together, 
and  entering  their  acceptance  as  applied  to  that  part  of  the  bid  which  con- 
forms to  the  advertisement,  and  immediately  changing  them  to  the  improved 
hid,  and  so  executing  the  contract;  thus  in  effect  letting  or  making  the  con- 
tract without  advertisement.  This  is  a  violation  of  law,  and  has  given  rise 
to,  and  is  made  the  apology /or  other  violations  of  law  and  official  duty. 

The  tenth  section  of  the  act  of  (/ongress  entitled  "an  act  to  reduce  into 
one  the  several  acts  establishing  the  Post  Office  Department"  provides 
''  that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Postmaster  General  to  give  public  notice 
in  one  newspaper  published  at  the  seat  of  Governmeiit  of  the  United  States, 
and  in  one  or  more  of  the  newspapers  published  in  the  State  or  States  or 
Territory,  where  the  contract  is  to  be  performed,  for  at  least  twelve  weeks 
before  entering  mto  anj^  contract  for  conveying  the  mail,  that  such  contract 
is  intended  to  be  made,  and  the  day  on  which  it  is  to  be  concluded,  descri- 
bing the  places  from  and  to  which  the  mail  is  to  be  conveyed,  and  the 
time  at  which  it  is  to  be  made  up,  and  t/ie  day  and  hour  at  ivhich  if  ?> 
to'be  delivered."  The  clause  above  cited  designates  the  only  mode  in  which 
an  original  contract  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  can  be  legally  entered 
into,  except  it  be  under  that  provision  relating  to  packets  and  steamboalSj 
which  is  in  its  terms  still  more  special  and  restricted.  Therefore  any  ori- 
ginal contract  entered  info  for  the^transportation  of  the  mail,  w'hich  is  not  in 
pursuance  of  an  advertisement,  thus  special  and  distinct  in  its  terms,  "de- 
scribing the  places//-6>wi  and  /o  which  the  mail  is  to  be  conxeyed, and  the  time 
at  ivhich  it  is  to  be  made  up,  and  the  day  and  hour  at  which  it  is  to  be 
delivered,"  is  not  a  conlraci  made  in  conformity  with  the  law;  but  is  in 
violation  of  one  of  its  most  important  provisions. 

This  practice,  of  entering  into  contracts  without  the  ob>ervance  of  this 
provision  of  the  law,  throws  the  door  wide  open  to  unfairness,  favoritistr.. 
and  collusion.  The  public  know  nothing  of  the  purposes  or  the  wishes  of 
the  department  as  to  the  time  and  manner  of  transporting  the  mails,  ex- 
cept through  the  medium  of  the  public  advertisement;  and  the  honest 
business  man  who  would  wish  to  seek  a  contract  through  fair  competition, 
would  naturally  suppose  that  a  bid  pursuant  to  the  advertisement  would  be 
the  one,  and  the  only  one  by  whicii  he  could  procure  such  contract;  and 
he  would  farther  suppose  that  he  would  be  bound  by  such  bid.  With  the  pub- 
lic at  largest! is  probably  has  been  the  case;  it  appears  to  have  been  so  with 
the  small  Whitractors  generally;  but  it  has  been  far  otherwise  with  a  class  of 
large  contractors,  who  appear  to  be  on  terms  of  intimacy  and  confidence  with 


13 


C  86    ] 


some  of  the  officers  of  the  General  Post  Office,  and  whose  affairs  are  inli. 
matcly  .blended  with  the  fiscal  concerns  of  that  department.  For  example, 
in  looking  over  the  bids  of  the  fall  of  1831,  it  will  be  found  that  such 
individuals  who  obtained  contracts  upon  the  great  mail  routes,  or  a  great 
-  number  of  the  small  routes  united,  included  in  their  bids  not  onlj'  a  propo- 
sition to  carry  the  mail  according  to  the  advertisement,  but  with  stipulations 

•  that  the  bidder  would  bind  himself  to  carry  the  mail  in  a  different  manner 
■  at  a  different  price.  Of  the  favored  contractors,  the  bids  to  carry  the  mail 
-pursuant  to  the  advertisenjent  are  generally  very  low,  so  as  to  enable  the 
'  department  to  award  them  the  contract;  while  their  improved  bid,  in  pur- 
.  suance  of  which  the  contract  is  at  last  executed,  is  very  high,  so  as  to  in- 
sure to  the  contractor  an  enormous  profit.     The  acceptance  is  marked  on 

•  the  proposal   book  opposite  the  sum  which  was  bid   for  conveying  the  mail 
.  pursuant  to  the  advertisement;  and  the  rival  bidders  will  see  at  once,  on  an 

inspection  of  this  book,  that  they  are  nnderbid,  but  the  contracts  are  exe- 
cuted according  to  the  improved bid^wWxch  is  often  twice  or  three  times  the 
sum  at  which  it  is  t;ntered  on  the  proposal  book  laid  open  to  the  inspection 
j- of  the  public. 

For  example,  at  the  lettings  in  1S31,  James  Reesidebid  to  carry  the  mail 
from  Philadelpiiia  to  New  York,  pursuant  to  advertisement,  (daily,)  at 
$6,000  a  year,  or  at  ^19,000  improved.  The  bid  was  entered  "  accepted'* 
at  $6,000,  and  the  contract  executed  at  $19,000, 

Reeside,  Slaymaker,  and-Tomlinson  bid  to  carry  the  mail  from  Philadel- 
!=  phia  to  Pittsburg,  (daily,)  pursuant'  to  advertisement,  at  J57,000  a  year,  or  at 
$27,000,  imp7-oved,  and  extended  to  Wheeling.     The  bid  was  accepted  at 
;g7,000,  and  the  contract  executed  at  $27,000. 

Stockton  and  Neil  bid  to  csrry  the  mail  on  routes  from  Cumberland  to 
Wheeling,  Washington  to  Steuhenville,  Baltimore  to  Cumberland,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.  to  Frederick,  and  Frederick  to  Winchester,  at  §7,000  a  year, 
as  advertised,  or  at  $15,500  improved;  the  bid  was  accepted  at  iS7,000,  and 
the  contract  executed  at  i?  15, 500. 

Stockton  and  Neil  bid  to  carry  the  mail  on  17  routes  in  Ohio  (of  which 
that  from  Wheeling,  Va.  to  Zanesville  is  first  in  order)  as  advertised  at 
$30,000,  or  at  §50,410  improved.  The  bid  was  accepted  at  $30,000,  a'nd 
the  contract  executed  at  J?50,4I0. 

It  were  tedious  to  enumerate  the  cases  in  which  this  difference  exists,  be- 
;  tween  the  bid  made  pursuant  to  advertisement,  and  accepted,  and  the  con- 
tract as  executed.     Your  committee  have   caused  to   be  prepared   by  their 
secretary,  and  they  exhibit  herewith  a  table  compiled  from  books  and  pa- 
pers in  the  department;  from  the  blue  book;  from  the  letter  of  the  Post- 
master General  of  the  3d  of  iMarch,  1S34,  in  reply  to  a  call  of  the  Senate, 
and  from  his  report  of  the  ISth  of  April,  1832,  which  shows  in  each  indi- 
vidual case,  in  the  contracts  of  1831,  the  difference  between  the  bid,  as  en- 
tered on  the  bid  book,  and  the  contract  executed.     It  shows  also  the  cases 
in  which  no  difference  exists,   from  which   it  will  be  seen  that  the  whole 
amount  of  the  bids  accepted   pursuant  to   the  advertisements  in  October, 
1831,  was  -  -  -  -  -  -     $340,626  54 

Amount  of  contracts  as  executed  for  the  same  division,  (by 

the  blue  book),    -.----       488,859  40 


Making  a  difference  of  -  -  -  -     $147v632  86 


[   86   ]  14 

And  this  whole  diflercncc,  amounting  to  theenonnoiis  sum  above  shown,  is 
made  in  favor  of  not  more  than   fifteen  contractor.-j,  or  com|)anies  of  con 
Iractor?,  most  of  whom  your  committee  h.xve  found  it  their  duty  to  notice 
ill  their  former  report  as  the  recipients  of  other  pecuniary  favors  from  the 
department.  — (See  Doc.  No.  10 

It  will  he  seen  that  there  is  a  difHicrence  of  about  gsr,000  between  the  ag- 
preu;'Vte  of  ori-^inal  contracts  for  tl^is  division  of  moii  routes,  as  it  is  set  down 
in  the  blue  hook,  and  the  amount  as  extracted  from  the  contracts  themselves 
by  the  Secretary  of  your  committee;  the  st.'ttement  in  the  Blue  Book  ma 
liino'  them  so  much  the  larger.    The  joint  resolution  under  which  that  book 
was  compileil  requires  that  the  sums  paid  by  the  original  contracts^  and  all 
additional  allowances  to  mail  contractors,  should  be  reported,  distinguishing 
between  that  which  is  paid  by  the  original  contract  and  that  which  is  addi- 
tional.    But  in  the  repoit  of  mail  contracts  there  are  many  cases  in  which 
the  o/'i^'-inal  contracls,  as  execufed.&ve  set  down  in  that  book  much  uboi^e. 
and  the  extra  allowances  much  beloiu  their  true  amount,  as  understood  b> 
your  committee;  and  hence  the  difference   between   that  statement  in  the 
Blue  Book  and  the  one  made  out  by  their  Secretary  from  the  contracts.    As, 
for  example,  a  contract  was  executed  by  R.  C.  Stockton,  in  w-hich  he  agreec 
to  carry  the  mail  on  13   routes,  among  others  from  Philadelphia  to  Balti 
more  at  sl4,950,  as  advertised,  and  lo  make  certain  improvements  for  the 
additional  compensation  of  $20, 150  a  year.      This  is  set  down  in  the  ab 
stract  prepared  by  the  secretary  of  the  committee  as  an  original  contract,  a 
!i«14,954,  precisely  as  it  is  stated  in  the  letter  of  the  Postmaster  General  o 
the  18th  of  April,  1S32;  but  it  appears  to  be  set  dowii  in  the  Blue  Book  as 
an  original  contract  of  ^35, lUO,  making  in  that  single  item  a  diflerence  o 
$21,150.   A  few  cases  of  (his  kind  make  up  the  difference,  large  as  it  is,  be 
tween  the  amount  of  original  contracts,  as  stated  in  the  blue  book,  and  tlu 
same  as  extracted  from  the  executed  contracts. 

But  aside  of  the  train  of  inauspicious  circumstances  which  attend  that  clas 
of  cases  in  which  contracts  are  executed  on  improved  bids,  your  committet 
can  discover  no  principle  of  law  or  reason  on  which  those  contracts  can  b 
justified.     It  is  not  easy  to  ascertain  in  what  light  the  Postmaster  Genera 
himself  viewed  this  subject,  or  what  provision  of  law  he  supposed  sustainec 
him  in  entering  into  these  contracts.     What  was  his  opinion  of  the  ^^  con 
tract''  mentioned  in  the  lOlh  section  of  the  act  of  JNIarch  3,  1825,  and  whei 
and  how  did  he  consider  that  contract  as  *•  concluded  ?"    If  the  written  an( 
sealed  obligations  to  transport  the  mail,  which    in  the  common  language 
the  officers  of  the  department  are  called    ''the  contracts,"  be  so  wi  '  " 
meaning  of  that  section  of  the  law,  then  is  that  provision  violated 
cases  in  which  that  bond  is  executed,  and  the  contract  '■^concluded 
performance  of  a  servico  different  t'roni  (.hat  which  is  set  forth  in  the  publish 
ed  proposals.     The  law  requires  that  before  a  contract  be  entered  into  th< 
precise  service  to  be  performed  shall  be  distinctly  designated  in  a  publishec 
advertisement.     If  different  services  are  accepted  in  the  bid,  it  is  as  if  no  ad 
Tertisement  had  been  made;  or  worse,  for  it  makes  the  advertisement  but 
false  sign,  which  serves  to  deceive  rather  than  notify  the  public  of  what  is  t 
be  performed.    It  cannot  at  all  change  the  case  that  there  is  also  a  propositioi 
in  the  same  paper  pursuant  to  the  advertisement.     If  that  be  not  the  bid  vvbicl 
is  homt/We  accepted,  it  is  the  same  as  if  it  were  not  there.     If  it  be  accept 


I  lllCIl    Uill 

inguage  o 
within  ihJ 
in  ail  th'l 

r  for  th| 


15  [  SS  ] 

ed,  aad  if  tlic  acceptance  be  the  contract,  then  a  new  question  arit^es.  Has 
the  Poslmaster  General  a  right  to  change  and  enlarge  the  contract  b}-  a  pri- 
vate arrangement  with  the  contractor?  Under  tlie  provisions  of  this  section, 
it  is  clear  that  he  has  not.  He  cannot  change  it  without  anoihcr pirblic  no- 
tice, pursuant  to  the  statute,  setting  fnrlh  the  proposed  modification  as  a  new 
contract,  and  inviting  compciition.  if  no  other  clause  in  the  hiw  authorized 
it,  tlie  Postmaster  General  could  not  cliange  or  modify  any  conlroct,  nor  or- 
der an}'  extra  service,  nor  pay  any  extra  compensation  by  j)riv:Ue  contract. 
j3ut  public  notice  must  have  been  given,  and  competition  invited  for  each  in- 
crease of  service  and  of  compensation.  But  the  law  permits  that  contracts 
be  entered  into  for  four  years,  and  within  that  time  the  wants  of  the  country 
may  require  a  change  in  the  time  and  mannerof  transportingthe  mail  on  any 
given  route,  and  it  would  be  inconvenient  to  provide  in  that  manner  for  small 
but  nej;cssary  alterations.  Yet  all  the  difficulties  wliicii  might  arise  froni 
this  state  of  things  are  obviated  by  tiie  forty-third  section  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress above  referred  to,  which  permits,  by  implication,  an  additional  allow- 
ance of  extra  pay  for  increased  services;  but  it  is  express  in  its  provisions 
*'  that  no  additional  allowance  shall  be  made  to  any  contractor  or  carrier  of 
any  mail  on  any  route  over  and  beyond  the  amount  stipulated  in  his  contract 
entered  into  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  on  such  route,  unless  additional 
service  shall  be  required;  and  then  no  sucli  additional  compensation  shall  be 
allowed  to  exceed  the  exact  proportion  of  the  original  amount  io  the  addi- 
tional duties  required.'^ 

Whether  ii  was  by  the  suj)posed  authority  of  tliis  section  of  the  act,  or  of 
that  above  referred  to,  or  whether  it  was  without  reference  to  either  that  the 
Postmaster  General  entered  into  these  contracts,  is  unknown  to  your  com- 
mittee. 

This  subject  was  briefly  touched  by  them  in  the  report  laid  before  the  Se- 
nate at  tiie  last  session;  and  about  the  time  of  the  adjournment  of  Congress 
a  paper  bearing  the  signature  of  the  Postmaster  General,  and  styled  "  An  Ad- 
dress to  the  people  of  the  United  States,"  issued  from  the  office  of  the  Offi- 
cial Journal,  in  which  paper  the  Postmaster  General  notices  the  fact  that 
"  the  committee  animadvert  upon  this  class  of  contracts."  He  speaks  also 
of  the  manner  in  which  some  of  these  bids  and  acceptances  were  made,  espe- 
cially those  of  Stockton  and  Neil,  and  of  Reeside  and  Slaymaker.  '<The} 
made,"  he  says  '■'■  in  each  case  two  propositions;  the  smaller  was  (irst  accept- 
ed; afterwards,  for  the  better  accommodation  of  the  public,  the  greater  ser- 
vice was  required,  and  of  covrscihc  higher  compensation  given;"  but  he  re- 
fers to  no  law,  and  he  advances  no  reason  on  which  tliose  modified  contracts 
can  be  sustained. 

Your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  they  cannot  he  sustained  by  the  legal 
provisioa  last  above  cited,  because  they  do  not,  in  any  of  the  cases  which 
they  have  examined,  bear  "an  exact  proportion,"  |in  the  language  of^tkat 
section,  or,  in  truth,  any  just  or  fair  proportion  to  the  compensation  allowed 
for  services  by  the  bid  made  and  accepted  pursuant  to  the  rulvertisement. 
Take,  for  example,  the  route  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh,  which  was 
first  accepted  daily  at  §7,000,  and  which,  by  the  modified  conlrac*:,  pur- 
suant to  the  improved  bid,  is  carried,  as  is  alleged,  twice  daily  to  Pitts- 
burgh at  3^25,000,  and  extended  to  Wheeling  at  ^327,000^  ono  of  the 
ine«!  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh  running  at  an  increased  speed.     Now 


[86  1 


16 


it  can  hardly  be  established,  as  a  mathematical  proposition,  that,  if  a  daily 
mail  cost  $1,Q0.0,  that  a  mail  twice  daily  should,  by  exact  jnoporilon^  cost 
g25,000;  nor  do  we  think  that  any  one  who  understands  the  nature  and  value 
of  the  service  will  be  prepared  to  say  that  the  one  bears  any  just  or  fair 
proportion  to  the  other.  It  were  vain  to  urge;  as  an  apology  for  such  ex- 
cessive increased  allowance,  that  there  is  no  means  of  arriving  at  the  true 
proportion  which  (he  original  bid  and  the  increased  allowance  bear  to  the 
service  rendered  under  each,  or  to  each  other. 

If  such  proportion  cannot  be  arrived  at,  the  law  forbids  the  increased  al- 
lowance. But,  in  truth,  no  law  applies  to  this  species  of  contract:  it  is 
neither  an  original  contract  which  44ie  law  will  recognize,  nor  a  legal  extra 
;il!ov/ance  for  increased  services;  it  is  about  equidistant  between  them,  and 
sustained  by  neither.  It  is  a  clear  violation  of  both  the  letter  and  spirit  of 
the  law,  and  other  violations  of  the  law  have  grown  out  of  thi.-!,  and  this  is 
xnade  their  apology.  -• 

The  5th  section  of  the  "  act  concerning  public  contracts,"  approved  April 
21,  1808,  provides  "  that  it  f-hall  be  the  duly  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Trea- 
s'jry.  Secretary  of  War,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  the  Postmaster  General, 
annually  to  lay  before  Congress  a  statement  oi  ultihe  contracts  which  have 
been  made  in  their  respective  departments  during  the  year  j^receding  such 
report;  exhibiting  in  such  statement  "  the  name  of  the  contractor;  the  article 
or  thing  contracted  for;  the  place  where  the  article  was  to  be  delivered,  or 
the  thing  performed ;  the  sum  to  be  paid  for  its  jierformancf  or  de^ 
Iiveri/;j\\e  date  and  duration  of  the  contract." 

The  JPostmaster  General,  in  his  report  of  the  18th  of  April,  1S32,  in 
which  he  professes  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  statute,  reports 
these  contracts,  as  nearly  as  your  committee  can  ascertain,  and  as  he  himself 
says,  in  his  beforementioned  address,  according  to  the  bids  made  pursuant 
do  the  advertisement,  and  so  accepted;  while  the  contracts  under  seal,  which 
appear  to  have  been  executed  before  the  end  of  the  year  1S31,  and  about  six 
DTonths  before  the  presentation  of  thai  report,  differ  from  it  by  upwards  of 
(860,000.  The  Postmaster  General,  then,  if  he  meant  to  report  truly,  and 
Jn  gcod  faith,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  law,  did  not  look  upon  the 
sealed  covenants,  made  in  pursuance  of  the  '■'■improved  bids,"  as  the  con- 
tracts; otherwise  no  precedent,  real  or  assumed,  could  have  excused  him  to 
himself  for  a  report  so  far  from  the  actual  state  of  things,  and  so  certain  to 
mislead.  In  the  address  before  referred  to,  in  speaking  of  the  contract  of 
Stockton  and  Neil,  he  says,  "the  first  report  of  this  contract,  with  others, 
•svas  made  from  the  book  of  recorded  proposals,  and  contained  the  sum  ac- 
cepted. This  was  in  conformity  with  the  custom  which  had  prevailed  with 
my  predecessor."  This  your  committee  do  not  at  all  doubt,  and  it  would 
have  been  a  very  co^^■enient  and  very  just  mode  still,  if  the  present  Post- 
jT^ster  General  had  made  the  contracts,  as  executed,  conform  with  the  ac- 
cepted bids;  but  as  they  do  not — as  he  has  so  far  departed  from  the  practice 
of  his  predecessors  as  to  make  the  executed  contracts  cease  to  conform  to 
the  accepted  bids,  he  cannot  now  make  up  a  true  report  of  those  contracts 
from  a  statement  of  those  accepted  bids;  and  that  which  he  now  makes  as  an 
excuse  for  a  departure  from  the  truth  of  the  case,  in  an  official  paper,  was 
itself  a  violation  of  offcial  duty. 

Your  committee  have  shown  that  the  Postmaster  General  did  not  report 


17  [  86  ] 

the  increased  allowances  made  in  consequence  of  these  ^^  improved  bids,'* 
as  any  part  of  the  original  contracts  in  which  they  were  embodied.  Neither 
did  he  report  them  as  extra  allowances  when  called  upon  by  resolution  of 
the  Senate  to  report  the  amount  of  those  allo^'ances  made  for  extra  services 
since  the  6th  of  April,  1829;  they  pass  wholly  without  notice  in  any  of  his 
reports  to  Cong^reas,  and  seem,  in  his  judgment,  to  be  referable  to  no  class 
of  cases  whatever.  Indeed  no  one  could  but  feel  that  they  were  wholly 
without  legal. warrant,  and  that,  they  could,  therefore,  fall  under  no  known  le» 
gal  head.  Nevertheless,  immense  sums  of  money  have,  through  their  means, 
been  transferred  from  the  department  to  the  pockets  of  individuals;  and  the 
American  Congress,  and  the  American  people  have,  ur.t^l  this  invesiigntion 
commenced,  been  wholly  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  any  such  mode  of  ap- 
propriating or  disposing  of  the  public  funds. 

It  has  been  alleged  that  the  practice  of  the  department,  under  former 
administrations,  was  to  enter  the  acceptances  of  the  bids  upon  a  ])roposal 
book,  and,  in  making  up  the  annual  report  of  the  contracts  which  were  to  be 
laid  before  Congress,  to  refer  to  the  proposals  as  accepted,  and  make  up  the 
report  according  to  those  proposals;  so  that  if  any  alteration  were  made  ia 
the  contract  before  it. was  executed,  the  contract  and  the  report  would  differ 
in  amount. 

Your  committee  have  no  doubt  that  the  annual  report  has  been  heretofore 
made  up  from  the  accepted  bids  on  the  proposal  book,  as  stated  in  that  paper, 
and  that  there  are  ancient  cases  in  whicii  the  executed  contracts  differ  Irom 
the  accepted  proposals,  and  in  like  manner  from  the  report;  but  this  differ- 
ence between  the  executed  contracts  and  the  accepted  proposals  does  not 
appear  to  your  committee  to  stand  in  that  situation,  either  as  to  frequency  or 
amount,  which  would  make  it  available  as  a  precedent.  Your  committes 
caused  to  be  prepared,  in  a  tabular  form,  (See  Doc.  No.  11)  the  report  of  the 
contracts  of  1827,  which  were  put  into  operation  on  the  1st  January,  182S; 
and  opposite  to  each  contract  as  reported  they  have  caused  to  be  carried  out 
tiie  sum  actually  embodied  in  the  executed  contract  for  the  same  route. 
These  contracts  are  selected  because  they  are  those  renewed  in  1S31;  which 
renewed  contracts  are  the  same  referred  to  and  examined  above.  By  these 
it  appears  that  the  whole  amount  of  the  reported 

Contracts  of  1827  is  -  .  -  -  .     $282,785  00 

The  whole  amount  of  the  actual  contract  as  executed  is       -      280,155  00 


Making  a  difference  of        -  -  -  ;  ^        $2,630  00 

Which  is  to  cover  every  mistake,  error,  or  inadvertency  that  may  have 
arisen  to  disturb  the  exact  and  just  relation  between  the  report  and  the  con- 
tract. Your  committee  justify  no  inaccuracy  or  inequality  whatsoever  be- 
tween them;  they  ought  to  be  mathematically  exact  in  their  agreement  with 
each  other,  for  a  due  obedience  to  the  law  and  a  strict  discharge  of  official 
duty  require  it;  but  it  would  not  be  just  to  hold  the  head  of  a  department, 
diversified  as  is  this,  to  a  rigid  accountability  for  every  minute  departure 
\vhich  may  be  found  in  the  work  of  his  subordinates  from  mathematical  ac- 
curacy; neither  can  a  clerical  mistake  or  error  of  this  kind,  loo  small  to  at- 
tract attention,  be  fairly  drawn  into  a  precedent  to  justify  the  habitual  resort 
to  a  system  of  similar  errors. 
3 


[  86  ]  18 

There  is  another  circumstance  touching  the  above  named  report  of  the  18th. 
April,  1832,  which  ouo;ht  not  to  be  entirely  overlooked.  It  was  made  out  and 
presented  to  Congressjusibeforelhe  commencement  of  the  presidential  canvass 
M  1832 ,  and  it  was  a  paper  the  tendency  of  which  was  to  bear  upon  that  elec- 
tion. It  held  out  to  the  American  people  a  delusive  view  of  the  prosperity 
of  an  important  department  of  the  Government,  and  naturally  induced  a  belief 
that  it  was  wisely  and  cconomicallyadministered',  while,  in  truth,  the  public 
monies  were  squandered,  and  the  departmentwas  rapidly  sinking  to  insolvency. 

The  report  of  your  committee  which  was  presented  to  the  Senate  on  the 
9.th  day  of  June  last  has,  since  that  time,  become  a  subject  of  very  general 
discussion.  Most  of  the  special  cases  therein  noticed  have  been  commented 
upon  in  publications  issuing  from  various  sources;  and  to  all  these,  so  far  as 
they  contained  denial,  explanation,  or  argument,  your  committee  have  given- 
the  most  full  and  candid  consideration.  They  were  well  aware  that  the 
magnitude  of  the  task  imposed  upon  them,  the  obstacles  which  were  thrown 
in  their  way,  and  the  limited  time  which  was  allowed  for  the  investigation^, 
had  necessarily  rendered  that  report  imperfect  in  its  details  and  liable  to  er- 
ror. They  therefore  sought  additional  evidence,  in  all  cases  where  it  was 
supposed  to  exist,  and  when  time  was  allowed  Ihem  to  procure  it.  It  was 
their  wish  to  have  made  this  examination  complete,  embracing  all  the  eases 
which  they  had  touched  in  their  former  report;  but  those  cases  were  so  nu- 
Hierous  and  diversified,  and  the  evidence  necessary  to  explain  them  so  volu- 
minous, that  the  vacation  was  consunied  in  tracing,  in  all  their  windings,  a 
few  which  were  considered  the  most  important. 

Robinson's  Case. 

The  contract  of  James  F.  Robinson  to  carry  the  mail  from  Cincinnati 
to  Georgetown,  Kentucky,  was  carefully  re-examined  by  your  committee, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  ihe  errors  into  which  they  were  led  in  their 
former  report  upon  that  subject,  as  well  as  to  show  the  true  character  of  the 
transaction,  they  deem  it  necessary  to  consider  it  somewhat  in  detail.  In 
their  former  report  it  is  noticed  in  the  following  terms: 

*' James  F.  Robinson  contracted  to  carry  the  mail  daily  in  four-hor«e 
post  coaches  from  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  to  Georgetown,  Kentucky,  seventy -ttvo 
miles,  in  fourteen  hours,  at  a  yearly  compensation,  of  §1,000.  His  sche- 
dule was  so  changed  that  he  w'as  required  to  run  through  in  twelve  hours  in- 
stead of  fourteen,  making  part  of  the  trip  in  the  night,  for  which  he  was  al- 
lowed the  additional  yearly  compensation  of  $3,000.  It  is  not  perceived 
by  your  committee  that  the  change  of  schedule  was  at  all  essential  to  the 
public  interest." 

In  the  above  statement  your  committee  was  mistaken  in  supposing  that  the 
contractor  was  required  by  the  change  of  schedule  to  run  through  in  twelve 
hours  instead  of  fourteen  hours;  and  also,  in  supposing  that  the  schedule 
was  so  changed  that  hp  was  obliged  to  perform  any  part  of  the  trip  in  the 
night;  neither,  in  fact,  was  it  the  case;  and  your  committee  was  led  into  error 
in  this,  as  in  several  other  instances,  by  placing  reliance  on  such  parts  of  the 
letter  of  the  Postmaster  General,  of  the  3d  of  March,  1834,  as  were  not 
contradicted  by  other  official  papers,  or  in  some  other  manner  disproved. 
The  above  transaction  is  stated  in  that  letter  as  follows:  "  1774 — James  F. 
Robinson  is  the  contractor  for  carrying  the  mail  from  Georgetown,  Ken- 
tucky, to  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  seventy-two  miles,  daily,  in  four-horse  po»t 


19  [  86  3 

coaches,  from  1st  January,  1838,  to  31st  December,  1835,  at  a  compensa 
lion  of  one  thousand  dollars  per  annum. 

"  By  the  original  contract  he  was  required  to  perform  a  trip  in  fourteen 
hours  each  way,  to  perfect  a  connection  at  Cincinnati  with  the  great  mail  to 
and  from  the  east,  and  at  Georgetown  with  the  great  western  and  southern 
mails.  Under  their  increased  expedition  it  became  necessary  to  run  through 
in  twelve,  instead  of  fourteen  hours,  and  during  half  the  year  to  run  in  the 
night  instead  of  ihe  day.  The  additional  expenses  in  such  cases  are  required 
by  contract  to  be  defrayed  by  the  department.  In  this  case  the  contractors 
presented  a  claim  which  the  department  declined  to  allow.  It  was  finally 
referred  to  the  arbitration  of  two  experienced,  disinterested  individuals. 
Their  decision  was,  that  the  service  required  four  additional  teams,  at  an  ex^ 
pense  of  eight  hundred  dollars  per  annum,  each,  and  two  additional  coaches, 
the  use  of  which  was  worth  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per  annum,  eachj 
making  an  additional  expense  of  three  thousand  five  hundred  dollars  per 
annum.  The  allowance  of  that  sum  was  suspended,  and  the  opinion  asked 
of  three  other  disinterested  individuals,  who  certified  that  an  additional 
allowance  of  three  thousand  dollars  would  be  but  a  moderate  compensation <> 
The  additional  compensation  was  then  allowed  from  January  30th,  1833,  at 
the  annual  rate  of  §3,000." 

The  above  extracts  do,  as  far  as  we  know,  comprise  all  that  lias  been 
written  by  the  Postmaster  General,  in  defence  or  explanation  of  the  trans- 
action under  consideration.  The  statements  therein  contained  are  singu- 
larly erroneous,  especially  when  we  consider  the  means  of  knowledge  in  the 
power  of  those  from  whom  they  emanated,  or  who  prepared  and  furnished 
the  materials  from  which  they  were  drawn.  A  simple  narrative  of  the  pro- 
gress of  this  negotiation,  and  a  statement  of  the  true  condition  of  things, 
will  show  to  the  Senate,  not  only  the  truth  of  the  present  case,  and  the 
erroneous  light  in  which  it  has  been  before  represented  to  your  committee, 
and  to  the  public,  but  it  will  afibrd  a  fair  sample  of  a  very  large  class  of 
cases,  the  same  in  principle,  aftd  similar  in  their  details,  in  which  immense 
sums  of  money  have  been  transferred  from  the  coffers  of  the  public  to  the 
pockets  of  favored  individuals. 

At  the  letting  in  the  fall  of  1831,  this  route  was  bid  for,  amongst  other 
individuals,  by  J.  F.  Robinson,  Oliver  W.  Gaines,  and  Robert  J.  Wardj 
their  bids  ranging  from  $2,750  to  $1,990,  for  a  daily  mail.  But  a  bid  was 
put  in,  in  the  name  of  John  Thruston,  whom  no  one  knew,  but  who  was 
vouched  for  by  John  Ilutchins,  at  §1,000,  for  a  daily  mail,  which  bid  was 
accepted.  And  there  is  next  on  file  (see  Doc.  No.  12)  a  letter  dated  Paris, 
Kentucky,  October  22,  1831,  signed  by  John  Thruston,  requesting  the  Post- 
master General  to  issue  the  contract  for  carrying  the  mail  on  this  route  to 
James  F.  Robinson,  which  was  acceded  to,  as  appears  by  a  letter  from  the 
department  to  Robinson,  dated  November  16,  1831.  See  Doc.  No.  13. 

On  the  3d  of  December,  1831,  Robinson  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Post- 
master General,  which  proposes  to  increase  the  sjjeed  on  the  route  "  so  as 
to  meet  the  increased  speed  on  the  routes  in  Ohio  and  Kentucky  connect- 
ed with  ity  for  the  annual  compensation  of  $ —  in  addition  to 

ihe  compensation  under  iny  present  contract^'*  (See  Doc.  No.  14  )  And 
accompanying  this  letter  is  an  estimate  going  to  show  that  his  daily  line  ol 
four  horse  post  coaches  would  cost  S5,250  more  per  annum  than  all  that  would 
probably  be  received  from  passengers.  (See  Doc.  No.  15.)     This  is  also  ac- 


86  1  20 

c  . 

companied  with  a  letter  from  II.  J.  Ward,  who  is  shown  by  the  evidence  to 
be  a  partner  of  Mr.  Robinson  in  this /contract,  in  whii>h  he  refers  to  and  reca- 
pitulates the  calculation  of  expense  by  Robinson,  and  says  ♦'  he  proposes  to 
increase  the  speed  of  transportation  so  as  to  connect  ihis  line  with  the  im- 
provement bids  of  the  Oliio  Company  from  Columbus  to  Cincinnati,  and  the 
Kentucky  Company  from  Maysville  to  Nashville:  to  make  tfiis  connexion 
he  must  run  through  in  fifteen  hours.  According  to  his  present  contract 
he  is  allowed  twenty  hours  fir  the  performance  of  the  Irip.'^  He  then 
proceeds  to  enlarge  upon  the  advantage  which  will  accrue  to  tlie  department 
and  the  country  from  this  increase  of  speed,  and  also  the  great  expense  which 
it  will  cause  the  contractor.  He  says  "  it  ivill  be  ucknoivledged  as  another 
evidence  of  the.  enterprise  and  ability  of  the  head  (of  the)  department^*' 
and  in  conclusion,  that  an  additional  allowance  of  iS-,500  per  annum  would 
not  be  more  than  a  fiiir  compensation  for  the  increase  of  speed.  At  the  foot  of 
this  letter  is  written' tlie  following  note,  by  the  representative  in  Congress 
from  the  district: 

"  Read  this  particulajly  and  decide."  See  Doc.  No.  16. 

This  letter  is  dated  December  4th,  1831;  and  on  the  29th  December,  1831, 
an  order  is  issued  from  the  department  directing  that  the  trip  be  performed  in 
twelve  hours,  instead  of  the  time  set  forth  in  the  advertisement.  See  Doe.  17. 

Next  follows  a  letter  from  Robert  J.  Ward,  addressed  to  the  Postmaster 
General,  bearing  date  the  1 1th  of  April,  1832,  in  which  he  refers  to  a  calcu- 
lation made  by  Mr.  Robinson.  He  goes  info  a  particular  detail  of  increased 
expenses  in  consequence  of  the  increased  speed;  speaks  of  the  remarkable 
punctuality  with  which  the  contract  has  been  performed,  and  concludes  by 
pressing  upon  the  department  the  allowance  oijhitr  thousand  dollars  a  year 
for  the  daily  line.  And  then  a  letter  from  J.  F.  Robinson  to  the  Postmaster 
General  of  the  14th  June,  1S32,  contains  an  estimate  of  increased  expense,  in 
consequence  of  increased  speedy  which  he  fixes  at  2>4,80O,  and  ends  by  claim- 
ing that  the  compensation  ought  to  be  increased  to  $4,000  a  year.  See  Doc.  18. 

This  is  accompanied  by  a  certificate  signed  by  E.  P.  Johnson  and  John 
HutchinSf  in  which  they  vouch  for  the  correctness  of  Mr.  Robinson's  state- 
ments and  estimates,  and  say  that  the  compensation  asked  is  very  reasonable 
for  the  services  performed.  See  Doc.  No.  19.  Also  a  certificate  by  Milus  W. 
Dickey  and  Robert  M.  Ewing,  saying  that  they  are  acquainted  with  the 
line,  that  the  property  stated  in  ihe  letter  is  employed,  and  that  the  additional 
compensation  asked  is  reasonable.  See  Doc.  No.  20, 

These  papers  appear  to  have  been  forwarded  to  the  department,  and  ex- 
amined, and  a  letter  is  addressed  by  Mr.  Brown  to  Mr.  Robinson,  dated  the 
6th  of  December,  1832,  (see  Doc.  No.  21)  saying,  that  the  Postmaster  General 
directs  him  to  state  that  he  does  not  reject  the  claim,  though  he  cannot  grant  it 
on  the  ground  of  the  calculation  furnished  by  Mr.  Ward,  and  adds  "  noejctra 
allowance  is  lawful  unless  it  is  based  upon  the  original  contract.'*  He 
then,  after  stating  that  it  was  necessary  to  run  through  in  12  hours  instead 
of  14,  proceeds  to  say,  what  no  person,  it  seems,  had  thought  of  before, 
**  that  they  had,  diirijig  the  best  season  of  the  year  for  p asset} gers,  to 
run  from,  Cincirmati  to  Georgetown  in  the  night  instead  of  the  day.'* 
He  then  refers  some  special  questions  to  J.  Hutchins  and  J.  G.  Chiles  for 
their  decision,  on  which  he  says  the  allowance  can  be  based.  Whereupon, 
Mr.  Robinson  calls  upon  Messrs.  Hutchins  and  Chiles;  they  certify.  See  Doc. 
No.  22.  Mr.  Milus  W.  Dickey  and  Robert  M.  Ewing  again  repeat  in  sub- 
stance their  former  certificate;  See  Doc,  No.  23}  and  John  Dudley  certifies. 


f  a\  [  S6  ] 

See  Doc.  No.  24.     Ami  thereupon  the  allowance  of  4,000  dollars  a  year  is 
made  I o  commence  with  the  contract.   See  Doc.  No.  25. 

In  this  iiej^otintion  it  is  curious  to  observe  on  what  nice  points  the  de- 
partment made  a  stand  before  it  would  consent  to  grant  the  allowance.  Mr. 
Brown  says  "  no  extrrt  allowance  is  lawful  unless  it  is  based  upon  the 
orisinal  c;mlract\^^  therefore,  let  Mr.  Ilutchins  and  Chiles  certify  the  ad- 
ditional number  of  teams  and  stages  required,  and  the  yearly  cost  of  those 
teams  and  stages,  and  that  will  form  a  basis  for  the  allowance.  The  law 
does  in  fact  proviile  that  no  additional  allowance  shall  he  made  unless  it  is 
based  upon  t!ie  original  contract;  and  it  also  provide?  that  '•^  then  no  addi- 
iional  compensation  shall  he  allowed  to  exceed  the  exact  proportion  of 
the  original  amotud  to  the  additional  duties  required.^^  Tha  original 
contract  of  Robinson  was  to  carry  the  mail  at  1,000  dollars  a  year.  He  es- 
timates the  stock  required  to  run  as  per  advertisement,  10  teams  and  4  coaches; 
to  run  according  to  alleged  increased  speed,  17  teams  and  8  coaches.  Ex. 
pense  of  teams  600  dollars  a  year  each;  wear  and  tear  of  coaches  150  dol- 
lars a  year  each;  so  that  by  his  estimate  the  cost,  as  per  advertisement,  would 
be  yearly  S6,600  00;  additional  cosi  for  increased  speed,  S4,S00  GO.  So 
that  an  extra  allowance  which  should  be  in  ^''  the  exact  proportion  of  the 
original  amount  to  the  additional  duties''^  (said  to  have  been)  ^^performed,^- 
must  bear  the  same  proportion  to  4,800  dollars  that  1,000  dollars  bear  to 
6,600  dollars;  this  would  give  ^121  27  as  the  extent  to  which  the  law 
would  have  allowed  them  to  go,  had  every  thing  been  true  as  stated  in 
these  papers. 

But,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  the  whole  is  a  fabrication  from  beginning 
to  end;  the  inducement,  the  details,  every  thing  relating  to  it,  except  the 
mere  fact  of  making  the  extra  allowance,  is  entirely  without  foundation. 

According  to  the  general  arrangement  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail 
on  all  the  several  routes  referred  to  in  this  negotiation,  the  speed  of  the 
mail  lines  on  the  other  routes  had  nolliing  to  do  \v\\\\  the  speed  of  this,  and 
it  did  not  require  that  this  .shA||||||^be  at  all  hastened  in  order  to  give  the  in- 
terior of  the  State  of  Kenlucxy  the  fidl  benefit  of  the  other  rapid  lines. 
The  eastern  snail  for  the  interior  of  the  State  of  Kentucky  entered  the  State 
at  Maysville,  and  passed  onward  through  Washington,  Paris,  and  Lexing- 
ton, and  a  branch  of  this  same  mail  went  from  Paris  by  Georgetown  to 
Frankfort.  The  principal  mail  for  Louisville  went  from  Cincinnati  by 
steamboat^  and  it  was  only  for  a  short  time  during  the  suspension  of  steam- 
boat navigation,  that  ('///y  pari  of  the  eastern  mail  could  find  ilsvvay  by  this 
route  from  (>incinnati  to  Georgetown,  and  this  would  haj)pca  during  the 
winter  a}-7'a?igement  only,  when^  it  seems  by  the  testimony  of  the  post- 
master at  Cincinnati  and  Lexington,  the  mail  was  carried  on  fwrseback. 

P.  S.  Loughborough,  the  general  agent  for  the  department  in  that  section 
of  the  Union,  on  his  examination  before  the  committee,  says:  See  Doc. 
No.  26. 

"  It  is  my  impression  that  the  eastern  mail  for  the  interior  of  Kentucky  has 
usually  entered  the  State  by  way  of  Maysville,  and  thence  goes  on  through 
the  Stale.  Another  msil,  which  goes  to  another  part  of  the  St.ite  of  Ken- 
tucky, passes  through  Cincinnati  to  Louisville,  usually  by  steamboat.  When 
tbe  l)oats  do  not  run,  the  mail  is  sent  by  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  I  be- 
lieve." 

Wm.  Burke,  (See  Doc.  No.  27)  the  postmaster  at  Cincinnati,  testifies,  that 


t  86  J  22 

for  eighteen  days  afler  the  1st  of  Jan.  1832,  the  eastern  mail  for  Louisville  waa 
ssnt  through  by  Georgetown;  that  on  tlie  iStii  clay  of  January  the  steamboat 
commenced  running  from  Cincinnati  <o  Louisville,  and  has  carried  the  mail 
for  the  last  named  city  ever  since,  except  when  the  river  has  been  impassa- 
ble by  reason  of  ice.  And  your  committee  have  been  shown,  and  here  ex- 
hibit three  letters  (Sec  exhibits  in  Doc.  No.  25)  from  individuals  connected 
wilhthc  department,  the  first  dated  the  26th  of  January,  1832,  and  the  last 
on  the  I4th  January,  1834,  addressed  to  the  postmaster  at  the  distributing 
office  of  Zanesville,  Ohio,  by  which  it  will  be  seen  that  the  mails  were  di- 
rected to  be  so  distributed  and  sent,  that  no  letter  or  paper  brought  by  the 
eastern  mail  could,  in  the  due  course  of  things,  pass  through  by  the  route 
from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  It  were  therefore  wholly  immaterial,  as  to 
the  arrangement  of  this  route,  what  was  the  speed  of  the  eastern  mail  from 
Baltimore  by  Wheeling  to  Cincinnati,  or  from  Maysville  to  Nashville. 

The  inducement  set  forth  for  the  pretended  increased  speed  upon  it, 
therefore,  wholly  fails.  It  was  not  necessary  to  connect  any  lines  whatever, 
or  to  effect  any  purpose  useful  to  the  department  or  the  public. 

It  was  not  necessary  that  the  trip  should  be  performed  in  the  night,  and 
it  was  not  so  performed  during  any  part  of  the  year;  and  there  was  no  in- 
crease of  speed  beyond  that  required  by  the  advertisement  and  the  original 
contract.  All  which  is  conclusively  proved  by  the  testimony  of  P.  S.  Lough- 
borough, agent  for  the  deparment,  Wm.  Burke,  postmaster  at  Cincinnati, 
Alexander  Connally,  (See  Doc.  No.  28)  postmaster  at  Covington,  Kentucky, 
and  J.T.  Johnson,  postmaster,  Georgetown.     See  Doc.  No.  29. 

William  Burke  testifies,  the  mail  ibr  Georgetown  was  regularly  made  up 
at  his  olBce  in  Cincinnati,  and  ready  to  be  delivered  by  sunset  in  the  sum- 
mer, and  by  7  or  S  o'clock,  P.  M.,  in  the  winter  season;  and  that  it  was 
usually  taken  from  his  office  at  from  4  to  5  o'clock  in  the  morning,  though 
it  \vas  sometimes  taken  across  the  river  to  Covington  (which  is  on  the  Ken- 
tucky shore,  immediately  opposite)  over  night.  And  Alexander  Connally, 
the  postmaster  at  Covington,  testifies,  tliatthe  mail  was  usually  taken  from 
his  ofi^ce  at  from  4  to  6  o'clock  in  the  mlfl^tVg-  -^^^^  ^t  is  shown  by  the 
evidence  of  J.  T.  Johnson,  that  the  average  time  of  its  arrival  in  George- 
town was  after  9  o'clock  in  the  evening;  allowing  the  contractor  about  24 
hours  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  if 
he  chose  to  spend  that  much  time  on  the  way;  and  if  he  did  not,  he  was  al- 
lowed just  as  much  time  as  he  was  pleased  to  spend,  instead  of  driving  night 
and  day  with  the  pretended  speed,  and  breaking  down  horses  and  destroying 
coaches  for  the  sake  of  expedition. 

From  Georgetown  to  Cincinnati  it  seems  to  have  moved  at  the  same  lei- 
surely pac6.  Mr.  Loughborough  testifies  that  he  twice  travelled  the  route 
in  the  stage  in  the  summer  season,  on  his  business  as  a^'ent  for  the  depart- 
ment, since  the  1st  of  January,  1832;  that  he  set  out  about  2  or  3  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  and  arrived  at  Covington,  opposite  Cincinnati,  about  7  or  8 
o'clock  in  the  evening;  making  about  15  or  1(J  hours  on  the  way.  J.  T. 
Johnson,  postmaster  at  Georgetown,  testifies,  that  the  usual  time  of  the 
Cincinnati  mail  setting  out  from  that  place  was  from  10  o'clock  at  night  to 
6  o'clock  in  the  morning;  and  Alexander  Connally,  the  postmaster  at 
Covington,  testifies,  that  the  usi'al  time  of  its  arrival  at  his  office  from 
Georgetown,  was  from  5  to  8  o'clock,  P.  M. ;  and  the  testimony  of  Burke 


23  [    86  ] 

and  Connally  go  to  show,  that  by  the  winter  arrangement  the  mail  was  car** 
ried  on  this  route  on  horseback. 

Thus  it  appears,  from  a  mass  of  evidence  which  cannot  be  contradicted;^ 
that  there  was  no  increased  speed  whatever  on  this  route;  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  contractor  was  not  required  to  perform  even  his  original  contract, 
but  was  indulged  with  so  much  lime  as  might  suit  his  own  private  conve- 
nience; that  from  the  first  to  the  last  he  had  as  many  hours  out  of  the 
twenty-four  as  he  might  choose,  and  just  such  hours  as  he  chose,  to  perform 
the  service  upon  his  route;  so  that  this  extra  allowance  of  $3000  •a  year, 
being  t/iree  thnes  the  amount  of  the  original  contract  price,  was  a  gift  by 
the  department,  for  which  no  public  service  whatever  was  rendered. 

Bennett's  Case. 

The  contract  of  J.  and  B,  Bennett  to  carry  the  mail  from  Bellefonte  to 
Meadville  is  noticed  in  page  25  of  the  former  report  of  your  committee. 
It  has  been  since  re-examined;  they  have  looked  into  the  public  documents, 
and  taken  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  and  will  proceed  to  lay  the  facts  of 
the  case,  as  they  now  appear,  before  the  Senate. 

It  appears  by  the  testimony  of  Benjamin  Bennett,  (See  Doc.  30)  the  surviv- 
ing partner,  who  was  examined  as  a  witness,  that  Hay  and  Bennett,  by  their 
contract,  were  to  carry  the  mail  through  on  that  route  in  three  days  and  a 
half,  from  the  1st  of  January,  1S2S,  to  December  31st,  1S32;  and  that  on  the 
1st  of  January,  1829,  they  were  allowed  by  Judge  McLean,  then  Postmaster 
General,  an  extra  compensation  of  S500,  "to  continue  for  one  year,"  for 
jTunning  through  in  two  days  and  a  half,  instead  of  three  days  and  a  half. 

In  the  letter  of  the  Postmaster  General  of  the  3d  March,  1834,  (docu- 
ment 138,  page  4G.)  this  contract  is  thus  stated: 

"  222.  Hays  and  Bennett  were  the  contractors  for  carrying  the  mail  from 
Bellefonte  to  Meadville,  one  hundred  and  twenty  five  miles,  three  times  a 
week  and  back  in  stages,  from  1st  January,  1S2S,  to  the  31sl  December, 
1831,  at  an  annual  com pensa^gn^of  $2,200. 

"  They  were  allowed  on  tlt^oth  of  January,  1830,  for  so  expediting  the 
mail  as  to  perform  the  trips  in  two  and  a  half  days  instead  of  three  and  a  half, 
from  January  1st,  1830,  to  31st  December,  1831,  at  the  annual  rate  of  S500." 
Preparatory  to  the  lettings  in  October,  1831,  this  route  was  advertised  to 
run  through  in  stages  in  two  days  and  seven  hours. 
E.  Piatt  and  Company  bid  at  §1,980; 
Moore,  Libo  and  Company  at  S2,450;  and 

J.  and  B,  Bennett  at  S3, 500,  in  four  horse  post  coaches;  and  the  bid  of 
E.  Plait  and  Com.pany  was  accepted. 

On  the  9th  of  October,  after  the  acceptance  of  this  bid,  a  letter  appears  to 
have  been  addressed  by  J.  and  B.  Bennett  to  the  Postmaster  General,  still 
pressing  their  claim  to  the  contract.  Then  follow  letters  and  petitions  from 
various  individuals,  praying  that  the  mail  be  carried  in  four  horse  post 
coaches  instead  of  two  horse  stages,  and  that  J,  and  B.  Bennett  miglit  have 
the  contract.  And  on  the  10th  of  December,  1831,  there  appears  to  have 
been  a  letter  written  at  Washington  City,  addressed  to  Obadiah  B  Brown, 
by  W.  VV.  Fenton,  who  seems  to  have  been  a  member  of  the  firm  of  E, 
Piatt  &  Co.,  agreeing  to  relinquish  his  bid  on  this  route,  if  the  relinquish- 
ment be  not  permitted  to  injure  his  standing  with  the  department;  and  th«5 
contract  is  granted  to  the  Bennetts  at  $3,500  a  yenr 


C  86  ]  24 

The  language  of  this  letter,  a  copy  of  which  is  appended  to  this  report, 
evidently  conveys  the  idea  that  the  writer  was  yielding  something  which  the 
department  wished  should  be  yielded.  He  proposes  liie  terms  on  which  he 
will  give  up  his  bid,  and  adds,  *^  unless  the  relinqicishment  be  accepted  on 
these  terms,  I  ought  injustice  to  myself  to  ad  here  to  the  contract."  There 
must  have  been  some  kind  of  negotiation  g"ing  on,  or  some  wish  ex- 
pressed to  get  clear  of  the  accepted  bid  of  Piatt  &  Co.,  otherwise  a  member 
of  that  company  could  not  have  written  such  a  letter  as  this.  The  Post- 
master General  had  no  legal  right  to  exonerate  that  company  from  their  bid, 
on  any  terms;  his  duty  to  the  country  required,  not  only  that  he  should 
allow,  but  that  he  should  require  the  jjerformanee  of  the  contract  on  the 
terms  offered  by  the  lowest  bidder.  But  why  this  effort  to  put  aside  other 
and  better  bidders,  and  give  the  contract  to  these  individuals? 

It  was  noticed  in  the  former  report  of  your  committee,  that  John  Bennett 
was  an  active  and  efficient  suppoiter  of  the  present  administration,  and  that 
fee  was  the  owner  of  a  partizan  press  in  Meadviile,  Pennsylvania,  one  of  the 
termini  of  the  mail  route  on  which  he  got  this  contract.  The  Postmaster 
General,  in  his  address  to  the  people  of  the  United  Slates,  does,  it  is  true, 
deny  the  correctness  of  the  statement.  He  says,  "J.  B.  Bennett  was  never 
jknown  as  a  politician  or  an  editor;  he  never  owned  a  printing  establishment, 
or  had  any  concern  in  a  newspaper;  so  far  as  he  or  his  partner  entertained 
political  partialities  they  v,-ere  in  favor  of  the  late  administration  and  opposed 
to  the  present." 

These  assertions  appear,  however,  to  have  been  made  somewhat  at  ran- 
dom; and  they  come  in  direct  collision  with  the  evidence  taken  by  your 
committee.  It  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  Benjamin  Bennett,  that  his 
brother  was  a  strong  supporter  of  the  present  administration;  and, on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  partizan  press,  Andrew  Smith,  the  brother-in-law  of  John  Bennett, 
testifies  as  follows: 

"  In  1831.  Mr.  William  W.  Perkins  had  commenced  the  paper  in  Febru- 
ary or  March;  he  continued  it  till  sonie^lime  in  August  of  said  year,  and 
perhaps  longer.  In  August,  as  far  as  my  r^^ory  serves  me,  he  made  aa 
assignment  of  said  press  to  David  Dick  and  Henry  C.  Basler,  in  trust  for 
the  behefit  of  his  creditors.  On  the  2Ist  November,  1S31,  Mr.  John  Ben- 
nett made  a"  purchase  from  the  assignees  of  this  press.  Perhaps  the  next 
M3ay,  Bennett  mentioned  to  me  what  he  had  done;  also  observed  there  w&s 
ten  dollars  of  the  purchase  money  left  for  me  to  pay.  He  stated  there  had 
been  a  meeting  of  a  few  of  them  together,  and  proposed  to  purchase  the  press, 
«nd  authorized  him  to  make  the  purchase.  Judge  Barlow,  aiid  John  H. 
Work,  and  Edward  A.  Reynolds,  are  the  only  ones  of  them,  that  I  now  re- 
collect, who  were  to  pay  part.  I  assented  to  the  arrangement  for  my  part. 
On  examination  of  his  papers  since  his  death,  I  find  the  sum  of  eighty  dollars, 
as  paid  hy  him,  entered  as  a  charge  against  the  press.  The  whole  cost  was 
one  hundred  and  ten  dollars.  Mr.  Perkins  commenced  the  paper  as  a  neutral 
press;  three  or  four  months  before  he  assigned  he  came  out  in  favor  of  the 
present  administration,  The  year  before,  and  before  Perkins'  owned  it,  it 
was  an  anti-masonic  paper.  Between  the  period  of  tlie  assignment  anil  sale, 
the  paper  for  a  portion  of  the  tinfie  was  notediied;  Perkins  edited  it  after' 
the  .sale.  Beni/et  had  no  claims  on  Perkins  at  the  time  of  the  assignment, 
|hat  I  know  of;  but  alter  the  assignment  Bennett  bought  in  some  of  the  house- 


25  [  86  3 

bold  furniture  for  Perkins.     The  paper  tvas  continued  by  Perkins  after  the 
sale  without  any  change  of  its  politics,  except  the  change  above  menUoned." 

Thus,  while  this  negotiation  was  going  on  for  ihe  mail  route,  between  the 
time  of  the  biddings  and  the  relinquishment  of  Plait  &  Co.  on  the  10th  of 
Decembe?-,  John  Bennett  purchased,  partly  by  subscription,  but  principally 
with  his  own  funds,  a  newspnper  press,  and  arrayed  it  on  the  side  of  the 
administration.  Within  the  time  that  the  mail  on  this  route  was  carried  in 
two  horse  stsiges,  it  was  tivice  reported  by  the  present  Postmaster  General 
as  an  unproductive  route,  that  is,  a  route  which  does  not  produce  in  post- 
ages one-third  part  of  its  cost. 

On  the  2d  day  of  March,  1 830,  he  reports  it  as  yielding  J^409  45,  and 
the  cost  of  transportation  at  §2,700. 

On  the  24!h  of  February,  1831,  he  reports  it  as  producing  yearly  S589  37, 
at  a  cost  of  Si,200;  and  in  the  fall -of  this  sam^  year,  1831,  he  increased  the 
cost  to  S3, 500,  which  is  about  six  times  the  amount  of  the  annual  net  pro- 
ceeds of  the  office;  and  since  the  mail  was  carried  in  four  horse  post  coaches 
its  receipts  do  not  seem  to  have  improved,  for  on  the  lOtli  of' January,  1833, 
it  is  again  reported  as  unproductive,  and  the  net  proceeds  applicable  to  it 
stated  at  3476  Z'3j  less  than  one-seventh  part  of  the  cost  of  transportation. 

T'li.Low's  Case. 

In  the  proposals  for  carrying  the  mails  in  the  fall  of  1831,  route  956  was 
advertised  inthefollowing  words:  ''959,  From  A'eM;f/r/t  by  Bell  ville,  Acquack- 
nock,  Paterson,  Pompton,  Newfoundland,  Stockholm,  and  Hamburg,  to 
Deckertown,  fiftt  ?ni/es  and  back  twice  a  week  in  sfages.  Leave  Newark 
every  Tuesday  and  Saturday  at  5  o'clock,  A.  M.,  arrive  at  Deckertown  sam'e 
days  at  8  P.  M.;  leave  Deckertown  every  Monday  and  Friday  at  4  A.  M., 
arrive  at  Newark  same  day  by  7  P.  M  "     Proposals,  p.  7. 

On  this  proposal  Freeman  Anderson  bid  for  $1,000,  and  J.J.  Roy  bid  for 
^500,  but  offered,  6y  wai/  of  improve?nent ,  to  carry  the  mail  from  Newark 
to  Paterson  three  times  a  week,  on  tlie  rest  of  the  route  twice  a  week,  and  to 
add  from  New  York  to  Paterson,  by  Jersey  City  or  Kobokcn,  and  tficquack- 
vock  to  Paterson,  twice  every  day  aiid  back,  all  for  the  yearly  sum  of 
$1,000;  that  part  froni  New  York  to  Paterson  in  four  horse  pcjst  coaches. 

In  the  contracts  this  route  was  united  with  three  others  much  more  exten- 
sive, two  of  them  in  the  State  of  Penns}  Ivania,  Nos.  953,  1110,  and  1035; 
and  the  whole  given  to  J.  J.  Roy,  Stockton  &  Stokes,  and  others.  The 
contract  is  signed,  not  by  J  J.  Roy,  Stockton  &  Stokes,  but  by  Daniel  Searle, 
Miller  Horton,  and  J.  C.  Hortou.  The  whole  were  taken  for  ;S 1 3,975  per 
year,  or  $3,493  75  per  quarter. 

Upon  this  contract  there  are  several  endorsements,  showing  allowances  to 
the  contractors  for  changes,  &c.,  in  the  several  routes,  of  the  following 
dates  and  amounts: 

<«  12th  February,  1S33.  No.  1.110,  S2,000  per  annum,  from  the  com- 
mejicemejil  of  the  contracl.  Rescindeil  since  1st  December,  1S33,  and  one 
month's  pay  allowed." 

''8lh  June,  1833.  No.  1,110,  -S3. 000  per  annum,  from  1st  Jamiari/, 
1832,  and  .$10  76  of  dispensed  with  from  1st  December,  183.3,  an. i  from  1st 
December,  1833,  S  1,1 15  of  the  ^3,000  to  cease,  and  one  month's  pay 
allowed." 

4 


[  86  ]  26 

«20thMay,  1S34.  No.  1,110,-1,032,  and  1,035,  of  Ihe  S2,000  allowed 
12th  February,  1833,  ami  reduced  from  1st  December,  1833,  tj  be  allowed 
from  date." 

<<  1st  December,  1834.  No.  1,110,  reduced  lo  3  times  a  week  between 
Wilkesbarre  and  Carbondale;  deduction  iglSO  a  year  from  9th  November, 
1834." 

"4lh  December,  1834.  No.  056,  service  between  Paterson  and  Newark 
reduced  to  3  times  a  week;  deduction  from  1st  January,  1835." 

This  ^5,000  was  allowed  on  this  contract/row  the  beginning,w\\\c\\  was 
the  1st  January  1832;  S3,0D0  of  it  under  date  of  8th  June,  1832,  and 
il^2,000  under  date  of  12th  February,  1833,  long  after  the  service  com- 
menced. Reductions  were  subsequently  made  when  tiie  necessities  of  the 
department  demanded  them.  These  charges  and  allowances  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  conitv.ittee,  and  they  were  desirous  of  investigating  them, 
but  did  not  find  it  practicable  to  do  so,  except  to  a  small  extent  relating  to 
the  pjirt  of  956  between  Newark  and  Paterson.  The  facts  in  regard  to  this 
part  are  as  follows:  The  bids  are  before  stated.  One  was  for  the  route 
956,  as  advertised;  the  other  had  improvements  added.  The  union  of  this 
with  other  routes  at  a  distance  from  it,  in  another  State,  precludes  the  pos- 
sibility of  determining  what  was  the  contract  price  on  956,  and  covers  it  up 
in  such  way  that  it  may  be  made  subservient  to  frauds  which  would  escape 
detection. 

The  mail  had  not,  before  this  time,  been  carried  direct  from  Newark  to 
Paterson.  There  were  reguktr  mails  to  both  those  places,  and  the  two  in- 
tervening towns,  Belleville  and  Acquackanock,  were  supplied,  the  former 
from  Newark,  and  the  latter  by  the  mails  from  New  York  to  Patterson.  If  it 
was  thought  necessary  lo  create  a  new  route,  there  was  not  a  necessity  for 
its  extending  beyond  Acquackanock,  because  at  that  point  it  met  the  dally 
lines  between  New  York  and  Paterson.  The  objectof  extending  it  to  Pa- 
terson may  be  found  in  the  use  subsequently -made  of  it  for  the  convenience 
and  profit  of  Mr.  Tillovv.  The  importance  of  the  new  route  may  be  esti- 
mated by  the  statement  of  the  postmaster  at  Paterson.  See  Doc.  31.  He 
says,  <'  The  average  number  of  letters  passing  between  the  two  offices  is  about 
36  weekly;  of  daily  newspapers  6;  of  weekly  newspapers  it  may  be  20;" 
and  there  are  daily  mails  running  between  the  two  places  by  New  York. 

Although  this  distance  from  Newark  to  Paterson  was  a  part  of  the  route 
956  irom  Newark  to  Deckertown,  and  was  so  bid  for  by  both  who  offered 
for  it;  yet  wlien  the  contract  was  drawn  and  executed  it  vvas  separated  front* 
the  rest  of  the  route  in  this  manner:  after  stating  route  953,  it  proceeds 
*'956  from  Newark  by  Acquackanock,  N.  J., Paterson,  Pompton,  Newfound- 
land, Stockholm,  Hamburg,  and  Deckertown  to  Miiforcl,  Pa.,  and  back  three 
times  a  week  in  four  horse  post  coaches;  and  from  Newark  by  Belleville  and 
Acquackanock  to  Paterson  and  back^?o/fea  week  intwo  horsecoaches."  Thus 
advertised,  bid  for,  and  then  separated  in  the  contract,  this  short  route  was  in  a 
condition  to  be  dealt  with  as  a  distinct  subject  of  management.  Mr.  Roy  had 
been  a  bidder  for  it,  and  was  named  in  the  contract,  though  he  did  not  sign  it. 
William  Tillow  is  the  brother-in-law  of  0.  R.  Brown,  who  superintended  the 
business.  Mr.  Tillovv  did  not  bid  for  it.  He  says  (see  Doc.  32)  "it  was  a 
small  concern;  my  health  was  poor,  and  I  desired  to  get  it.  I  drive  my- 
self." But  he  matle  no  applicatioafor  it.  The  manner  in  which  he  obtain- 
ed it  may  be  inferred  from  his  examination.   He  stated  <'  this  was  originally 


27  [  86  ] 

part  of  Mr.  Roy's  contract,  and  he  gave  it  to  me.  The  contract  was  to 
Lave  been  made  out  to  me,  but  it  never  was  sent  to  me  to  be  signed." 
Question.  <'  Who  first  proposed  to  you  to  take  part  of  that  contract?"  An- 
swer. ^'  Mr.  Roy  I  heard  had  it,  and  I  wanted  to  get  it,  and  went  down  to 
see  him."  Question.  "  Did  any  person  in  the  department  suggest  to  you, 
by  letter  or  otherwise,  the  propriety  of  taking  this>oute  before  you  went  to 
see  Mr.  Roy  about  it?"  Answer.  *' I  cannot  say  that  they  did."  Ques- 
tion. "Can  you  say  that  they  did  not?"  Answer.  *•!  was  told  that  Mr. 
Roy  had  this  contract,  and  I  went  to  see  him,  and  got  it."  After  some  hesi- 
tation, and  a  suggestion  that  the  truth  must  be  told,  he  added,  ♦'  I  was  told 
by  a  person  in  the  department  to  go  to  Roy.  It  was  Mr.  Brown  who  told 
me  to  apply  to  Roy."  Thus  a  new  route  was  created,  joined  to  a  longer  dis- 
tance, separated  in  the  contract  from  the  other  part,  and  the  brother-in-law 
of  the  Qfficer  who  superintended  the  advertisements  of  the  contracts  is  inform- 
ed, by  this  officer,  that  he  must  call  on  the  contractor.  He  does  so,  and  re- 
ceives the  contract. 

The  sum  allowed  to  Mr.  T.  is  §200,  for  carrying  a  distance  of  fifteen  milee 
a  mail  of  which  he  says,  "  It  might  weigh  fifteen  pounds,  sometimes  more, 
sometimes  less;  he  cannot  say,  but  guesses  it  would  weigh  fifteen  pounds." 
It  was  carried  in  a  stage  for  passengers,  on  a  route  where,  for  a  number  of 
years,  a  stage  had  run  to  carry  passengers,  and  was  still  running,  and  to 
whiph  Mr.  Tillow  was  thus  to  establish  a  rival  line;  and  this  amount  is  con* 
siderably  beyond  the  relative  proportion  of  the  whole  distance  of  the  route 
956,  as  bid  for  by  Mr.  Roy.  But  Mr.  Roy  probably  found  his  compensa- 
tion in  other  portions  of  this  contract. 

But  this  recipient  of  the  favor  of  the  department  has  not  been  left  to  his 
original  grant.  Favors  have  been  extended  to  him  without  his  asking  for 
them.  His  service  has  been  increased  from  twice  a  week  to  three  times, 
and  then  to  six  limes;  and  his  pay  from  §200  to  S300,  and  then  to  ^600, 
which  is  a  very  convenient  addition  to  the  profits  of  a  rival  line  of  two 
horse  stages  running  15  miles. 

For  these  additions  and  extras  Mr.  Tiliow  never  applied;  he  did  not 
know  that  the  allowance  v/as  to  be  increased;  and  when  the  service  was  in- 
creased, he  did  not  inquire  what  was  to  be  the  additional  compensation. 
All  that  matter  was  attended  to  by  another,  on  whom  he  relied  with  perfect 
safety.  The  first  he  "knew  of  what  would  be  paid  to  hi^n  was  vyhen  he 
got  his  pay." 

The  committee  v^ere  desirous  of  learning  how  this  increase  of  service  and 
compensation  happened  to  be  made  on  such  a  route.^  Mr.  Tillow  informed 
them  that  "  the  people  petitioned  for  it  daily;  the  Postmaster  General  ordered 
it  so;  and  I  got  in  proportion,  being  $600;  I  never  saw  the  petitions." 

The  committee  thereupon  called  for  the  petition  and  other  papers  on  the 
subject,  which  were  exhibited.  They  consisted  of  a  petition,  a  letter  from 
the  Hon.  S.  Condict,  and  an  envelop,  with  an  endorsement  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Mr.  Brown.  The  petition  sets  out  a  desire  to  have  a  mail  daily, 
but  does  not  ask  to  have  the  contract  or  the  service  of  Mr.  Tillow  extended. 
It  states  that  "the  subscribers  have  conversed  with  Mr.  John  Fine,  a  res- 
pectable and  irustworthy  man,  who  now,  and  for  several  j'ears  pnst,  has  run 
«  daily  stage  for  carrying  passengers  between  the  aforesaid  places,  and  find 
he  is  willing  to  carry  the  mail,  for  the  four  days  on  which  no  mail  is  now 


[  86  ]  28 

carried,  direct  from  Newark,  through  Belleville  and  Paterson,up  and  down 
each  day,  for  two  hundred  dollars  a  year;  and,  if  desired,  he  will  carry  it 
every  day  in  the  week  (Sundays  excej)ted)  for  the  same  price,"  And  they 
** petition  ti)at  the  mail  may  be  carried  between  the  aforesaid  places,  up  and 
down  daily;  and  that  a  contract  may  be  made  for  that  purpose  with  the  said 
John  Fine." 

The  petition,  then,  was  no^  for  an  increase  of  service  on  Mr.  Tillow's 
contract,  nor  for  an  increase  of  expense;  but  was  an  offer  to  have  it  carried 
daily  (Sundays  excepted)  for  the  same  sum  which  ivas  given  to  "^nilow 
for  carrying  it  twice  a  week.  Yet  this  petition  was  made  the  pretence,  by 
the  department,  for  trebling  the  pay  of  the  brother-in-law  of  Mr.  Brown. 
The  letter  of  Mr.  Condict  was  written  merely  to  enclose  the  petition.  But 
the  endorsement  on  the  wrapper,  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Brown,  and 
the  sanction  of  the  Postmaster  General  added  to  it,  serve  to  explain  the  mode 
of  operation  in  this  matter.  This  endorsement  is  without  date,  and  in  the 
following;  words:  *'956  N.  J.  Wm.  Tillovv,.of  Newark,  contractor,  New- 
ark to  Paterson,  2  VV.  S.  Newark  is  the  largest  town  in  the  State,  and 
Patersoii  the  principal  manufacturing  town,  distance  15  miles.  , Interme- 
diate offices  yield — 

Belleville,         -         -         gl66  91 
Acquackanock,         -  46  2S 


Together,     -         -         $213   19 

They  desire  a  daily  mail.  Shall  it  run  three  times  a  week  till  the  l9t 
of  May,  and  then  six  times  a  week." 

To  this  is  added,  in  the  handwriting  of  the  Postmaster  General,  **Lret  it 
be  done."  And  then  there  is  an  endorsement  in  these  words,  "Contractor 
and  Postmaster,  Newark  and  Paterson,  written  to  2d  February,.  1832." 

Now,  it  so  happens  that  the  petition  is  dated  «  February  4th,  1832,"  and 
the  letter  of  Mr.  Condict  the  8th  of  March,  1832.  The  petition  was 
granted,  it  would  soem,  two  days  before  it  was  signed,  and  one  month  and 
six  days  at  least  before  it  was  received;  and  granted,  not  by  making  a  con- 
tract with  Mr.  Fine,  for  four  day?,  or  for  the  whole  week  at  S200,  but  by 
adding  $400  to  the  compensation  of  Mr.   Tillow. 

Paper  and  Twine. 

The  committee  made  some  inquiries  as  to  the  manner  of  furnishing  wrap- 
ping paper  and  twine  for  the  use  of  post  officx^s.  They  have  not  proceeded 
so  far  in  this  investigation  as  might  be  desirable,  but  sufficient  has  been 
done  to  satisfy  them  that  the  most  economical  mode  has  not  been  fol- 
lowed in  regard  to  it.  Some  of  the  offices  have  been  supplied  by  contract, 
or  rather  by  an  ordei-  of  the  department,  without  public  notice,  and  with- 
out  competition.  Oihers  by  purchases  made  by  the  postmaster,  or  by  some 
person  connected  with  him  in  the  office.  The  latter,  mode  has,  for  some 
time  past,  been  the  practice  at  the  post  office  in  the  city  of  New  York. 
From  the  statements  made  by  the  officers  at  that  city,  it  appears  that  thai  of- 
fice has  been  furnished  with  a  better  paper,  and  at  a  much  less  price  than 
those  offices  wliich  have  been  supplied  by  private  contract. 

Mr.  Barnabas  Bates  (See  Doc.  33,  Ans.  8)  states,  in  his  deposition,  that  he 
purchased  wrapping  paper  for  the  use  of  the  New  York  office.  He  says,  "I 
have  bought  some  for  @2,25,  some  for  $2,50,  some  for  ;^3,  and  the  highest  wa3 
for  )S3,75per  ream."  Mr.  Bates  was  shown  a  sample  of  paper  marked  by  the 


29  r  86  ] 

committee,  No.  7.,  which  is  proved  to  have  been  furnished  the  Providence 
post  office  by  the  contractors  at  Boston,  who  is  of  opinion  it  is  worlli  $2,85 
per  ream,  for  which  the  department  pays  $5  per  ream  to  the  contractor. 

On  the  —  day  of  April,  1S29,  Nathaniel  Greene,  a  printer  of  a  partizan 
paper  in  the  city  of  Boston,  and  one  of  the  contractors  who  furnished  paper 
jind  twine,  was  appointed  postmaster  at  that  place.  See  Doc.  34.  About  that 
time  he  tran-sferred  his  interest  in  tlic  Boston  Statesman  to  his  brother,  Charles 
G.  Greene;  See  Doc.  35;  and,  as  tiicy  state,  the  contract  with  tiie  Post  Office 
Department  passed  also  (as  an  appnrLenance  to  the  printing  establishment,  or 
otherwise)  to  Charles.  Although  the  statement  of  Mr.  Derby,  (See  Doc.  36) 
in  his  deposition  hereto  annexed,  as  well  as  the  peculiarity  of  the  language 
used  in  giving  notice  of  the  transaction,  seem  to  cast  a  suspicion  ov^er  it,  still  it 
is  not  the  intention  of  the  committee  to  impugn  or  question  the  validity  of 
the  transfer. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  notice  referred  to: 

*'  Nathaniel  Greene  has  this  day  retired  from,  and  Charles  G.  Greene 
has  acceded  to  the  firm  of  True  and  Greene.^  The  Boston  Statesman  will 
henceforth  be  published  by  Charles  G.  Greene,  at  the  office  of  True^and 
Greene,  Merchant's  Hall,  Boston. 

"  Benjamix  True, 
<'  Natuaniel  Greene, 
<*  Charles  G.  Gbeenb. 
"May  5,  1S29." 

It  also  apjjears  in  evidence  that  some  time  after  this  Nathaniel  Greene, 
the  postmaster,  became  the  partner  of  a  Mr.  Emersnn  in  a  paper  mill,  (See 
Doc.  37,  49  and  56)  and  manufactured  paper  for  Charles  G.  Greene,  (the 
ostensible  contractor  under  the  foregoing  assignment,)  who  furnished  various 
postmasters  with  the  paper  manufactured  by  Greene  and  Emerson;  and  the 
postmaster,  Nathaniel  Greene,  certified  to  the  department  that  the  paper  fur- 
nished hy  Charles  was  of  the  quality  stipulated  in  the  contract.  Notvvith- 
etanding  the  inspection  and  certificate  of  the  postmaster,  it  is  proved  that 
some  of  this  paper,  so  manufactured,  furnished,  and  certified,  was  unfit]  fof 
use,  and  was  returned  to  the  contractor. 

These  transactions  had  become  so  notorious  as  to  draw  public  attention  to 
them,  as  appe.nrs  by  the  deposition  of  Mr.  Charles  H.  Lock,  (See  Doc.  38)  who 
testifies  that  Nathaniel  Greene  said  to  him  that  *'such  a  fuss  was  made  about 
his  (Greene's)  owning  a  paper  mill  and  furnishing  paper  to  the  Government 
while  he  was  postmaster,  that  he  would  sell  his  share  in  the  mill  or  let  it  to 
Mr.  Emerson,"  which  he  accordingly  did  a  few  weeks  past;  and  as  the 
postmaster  now  seems  to  be  convinced  of  the  impropriety  of  being  contractor 
and  certifying  officer  to  the  paper  made  and  furnished  by  himself  and  partner, 
the  committee  trust  ihat  similar  improprieties  will  not  occur  again  in  that 
quarter.  The  committee  do  not  mention  these  facts  for  the  purpose  of 
criminating  the  postmaster,  but  to  show  the  necessity  of  constant  vigilance 
in  the  department,  and  the  great  impropriety  of  permitting  its  officers  to  be 
concerned  or  connected  in  contracts  with  it. 

The  inquiries  of  the  committee  in  regard  to  paper  and  twine  were  mostly 
confined  to  Boston  and  Providence.  What  quality  of  paper  is  used  at  other 
offices  and  furnished  by  other  contractors,  is  not  known  to  the  committee. 
We  have  the  testimony  of  several  dealers  in  paper  as  to  price  in  Boston, 


[  86  ]  30 

which  are  appended  to  this  report;  See  Doc.  39, 40,  41, 42,  43;  and  we  have 
also  a  sample  of  the  paper  furnished  the  olTice  at  Providence,  proved  by  the 
testimony  of  Robert  H .  Barton,  who  stated  he  had  been  the  mail  clerk  in  that 
office  since  the  eighth  day  of  July  last,  and  had  been  a  clerk  in  that  office  for 
one  year  previous  to  that  time;  and  that  the  sample  of  paper  marked  No.  7  is 
the  kind  of  paper  that  v;as  used  in  the  office  when  he  commenced  the  mailing 
of  letters,  and  was  continued  to  be  used  until  about  one  month  since,  when  the 
paper  marked  No.  6  was  received;  and  that  similar  paper  to  No.  7,  if  not  the 
same,  wa,s  used  previous  to  his  being  the  mail  clerk.  This  paper  was  shown 
by  the  committee  to  several  dealers  in  paper,  who  valued  it  as  follows  : 

Martin  Robinson       -  -     $3 

Thos,  Jefferson  Branch  -       2 

J.  C.  Brown,  bookseller  -  3 
William  Parker  (See  Doc.  44)  3 
Moses  Grant,  a  large  dealer 

in  paper  (See  Doc.  45)        -      2 
Barnabas  Bates,  of  New  York      2 

Making  an  average  estimate  of  two  dollars  and  sixty  cents  per  reamo. 
Moses  Grant,  the  largest  dealer  in  paper  in  the  city  of  Boston,  valued  the 
several  samples  of  paper,  as  shown  him  by  the  committee,  as  follows  : 

No. 


op  per  ream   ^ 

50     <«      «      V 
25     ''      *'       3 

of  Providence 

\ 

00     «      <•      ' 

of  Boston. 

00     "       '< 

25     "       '( 

1, 

%\  25 

No.  6,  $3  00 

No. 

11,    $2  50 

2, 

1  75 

7,      2  00 

13,     2  50 

3, 

2  50 

8,      2  50 

14,     2  75 

4, 

3  00 

9,      2  50 

15,     2  75  orgs  00 

5, 

3  00 

10,      2  75 

From  all  the  evidence  on  the  subject,  (See  Doc.  46,  47,  48, 52)  it  appears 
to  the  committee  that  paper  is  now,  and  for  several  years  last  past  has  been 
manufactured  and  sold  from  twenty  to  thirty-three  and  a  third  per  cent.  less 
than  formerl)';  but  there  has  not  been  a  concurrent  reduction  in  the  price  6t 
paper  furnished  by  contractors..  The  same  price  is  now  paid  to  contractors 
that  was  formerly  given,  when  it  was  twenty  to  thirty-three  and  a  third  pef 
cent,  higher.  It  is  apparent  that  the  contractors  make  large  profits  on  ihe 
paper  furnished  by  them. 

These  contracts  are  only  orders  of  the  department,  directiRg  the  favored 
person  to  furnish  paper,  blanks  and  twine,  on  the  terms  and  conditions 
named  in  the  order,  and  are  not  obligatory  on  the  department  for  any 
longer  time  than  the  officers  of  the  department  think  proper  to  consider 
them  so.  The  department  is  at  liberty  to  abrogate  the  order  at  any  time^ 
giving  reasonable  notice  to  the  contractor. 

The  committee  are  aware  this  is  but  a  small  matter,  compared  with  other 
transactions  of  the  department:  notwithstanding,  they  consider  it  better  to 
curtail  unnecessary  expenses  than  to  discontinue  mail  routes  that  are  useful 
and  convenient  to  the  business  community.  The  abrogating  of  these  orders, 
and  obtaining  supplies  of  paper  and  twine,  either  through  the  postmasters 
themselves  or  by  fair  and  open  competition  of  individuals,  would,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  committee,  save  money  to  the  Government,  without  inflict- 
ing injury  on  the  public,  or  producing  any  change  in  the  business,  pros- 
perity, or  facilities  of  the  people. 

The  committee  believe  that  the  paper  now  furnished  by  conlractors  is  of 


31  C  86  1 

a  better  quality  than  that  furnished  the  post  office  at  Providence  for  some 
time  past.  Of  this  belter  quality,  William  Parker  testifies  he  sold  to  C.  G, 
Greene,  in  October  last,  a  quantity  at  $3  per  ream;  and  Mr.  Haywood  tes- 
tifies that  he  sold  to  Hill  and  Barton  at  83  12  per  ream;  for  which  Mr. 
Greene  and  Hill  and  Barton  received  from  the  department  $5  per  ream. 
This  appears  to  the  committee  to  be  paying  excessive  commission  to  favored 
printers  for  the  transaction  of  the  business,  and  should  be  corrected.  It 
appears  that  the  Greenes  supply  about  one  thousand  reams  of  wrapping 
paper,  and  Hill  and  Barton  three  hundred  and  fifty  reams  per  annum. 

The  price  allowed  by  the  department  to  Hill  and  Barton  and  to  True  and 
Greene  for  twine,  was  forty-five  cents  per  pound.  And  it  is  proved  by  John 
Edwards,  (See  Doc.  51)  that  he  manufactured  the  best  quality  of  twine  for  the 
contractors  at  Boston,  from  the  27th  February,  1S30,  to  SlstDecembsr,  1831, 
at  80  cents  per  pound.  Since  that  time  he  has  charged  334  cents  per  pound. 
That  he  annually  sold  True  and  Greene  and  Ciiarles  H.  Greene  about 
twelve  hundred  dollars'  worth  per  annum;  and  that  he  had  also  sold  Hill 
and  Barton  to  the  amount  of  five  hundred  dollars  in  all.  Ordinary  twine, 
it  is  understood  by  the  committee,  may  be  purchased  from  20  to  25  cents 
per  pound,  and  cotton  twine  about  the  same  price.  What  proportion  of  the 
best  twine,  and  what  proportion  of  ordinary,  the  several  accounts  of  the 
contractors  do  not  state.  The  Messrs.  Greene  state  they  furnished  none  but 
that  manufactured  by  Mr.  Edwards.  On  reference  to  the  accounts  of  these 
contractors  for  two  years  past,  it  appears  that  the  Greenes  furnished  about 
eighteen  hundred  dollars'  worth  per  annum,  and  Hill  and  Barton  about 
fourteen  hundred  pounds  of  twine,   amounting  to  about  $630  per  annum. 

In  regard  to  printing  for  the  department,  the  committee  have  but  little  to 
add  to  their  former  report.  They  made  such  inquiries  previous  to  that  re- 
port, as  to  satisfy  their  minds  that  the  amount  paid  for  printing  proposals  for 
carrying  the  mail  was  a  large,  and,  as  they  believed,  a  great  proportion  of  it 
an  unnecessary  expenditure.  But  your  committee  possessing  little  know- 
ledge on  that  subject,  appointed  three  printers  in  the  city  of  Washington  to 
make  an  examination  and  report.  They  reported  (See  Doc.  53)  that  they  had 
*'  taken  the  accounts  for  advertising  proposals  for  contracts  for  the  year  1832 
as  they  stand  charged,  and  have  ascertained  what  the  actual  cost  of  advertising 
the  same  quantity  of  matter  the  same  number  of  times,  (that  is  to  say,) 
onee  a  week  in  the  National  Intelligencer,  would  have  been,  and  submit 
the  results  to  the  committee,  viz.: 

The  amount  paid  the  Globe         -  .  .  .  §8,386  50 

Actual  charge  for  the  same  in  the  National  Intelligencer  2,763  37| 

Making  a  difference  of  §5,623  12^ 

Reeside's  Contract — Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg. 

The  contract  of  James  Reeside  for  carrying  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to 
McConnellsburg,  which  was  noticed  in  the  former  report  of  your  commit- 
tee, has  since  become  the  subject  of  much  public  discussion.  The  atten- 
tion of  the  committee  was  again  callerl  to  it;  they  have  re-examined  it  with 
much  care  and  labor,  and  they  here*  resent,  somewhat  in  detail,  all  the  in- 
formation which  they  have  been  able  to  collect,  whether  from  document* 
or  the  examination  of  witnesses,  which  seems  at  all  important  to  the  cor- 
rect and  full  understanding  of  the  transaction. 

Andrew  Lindsay  and  Daniel  Shaeffar  were  the  contractors  on  this  rwt  j 


C  86  3  32 

prior  to  the  1st  day  of  January,  1S32:  and  Shaeffer,  (See  Doc.  No.  54)  in  his 
depositon,  wbinh  vv;is  taken  by  the  committee  on  the  18th  of  Nov^  1S34,  says, 
that  they  got  uiuler  their  contract  S600  a  year,  and  carried  the  mail  in  two 
horse  post  coaches,  excej)t  about. nine  months  of  the  last,  when  the}'  carried 
it  in  four  horse  post  coaches.  "  We  thought,"  says  the  witness,  '•  it  would 
make  a  good  route  for  passengers,  and  we  did  carry  a  great  man}';'*  he  add^, 
that  they  put  in  a  l)id  for  it  agnin  in  the  fall  of  1831,  .it  a  price  which  he 
does  not  recollect,  hut  refers  to  the  books  of  the  department. 

It  will  be  recollected  tiiat  this  route  was  struck  off  to  James  Recside  at 
the  lettings  in  October,  1S31,  at  $40  a  year;  and  that,  instead  of  S40,  he  was 
paid  by  the  department  $1,400. 

The  Postmaster  General,  in  a  letter  of  the  I/5th  of  May,  1834,  written  in 
answer  to  a  call  by  this  committee  for  information  on  that  subject,  gives  the 
following  explanatory  statement,  which  we  quote  at  large,  as  it  will  the  bet- 
ter enable  the  Senate  to  a])ply  the  evidence  to  which  we  shall  afterwards 
refer.  Having  answered  an  inquiry  as  to  another  route^  the  Postmaster 
General  says: 

"In  answer  to  your  further  call  for  a  *  statement  of  the  bids  and  contract 
from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg,'  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  said 
route  (No.  1,231)  was  advertised  to  run  three  times  a  week  in  four  horse 
post  coaches,  distatice  twenty-six  miles.  The  proposals  received  for  this 
route  were  as  follows,  viz. : 

*'  Fose  and  Wash,  S600,  or  S450  in  two  horse  stages, 

<<John  Blake,  v^lSO,  on  horseback. 

«  J.  Huddleston,  $600. 

»' James  Rceside,  §40,  or  \S99  improved. 

''  Lindsay  and  Shaeffer,  S300,  or  ^600  daily. 

<'  Thomas  H.  Boyd,  S250. 

«'  Joseph  Boyd,  S300,  or  g500  daily. 

'*The  proposals  of  James  Reeside  at  4?40  were  accepted.  The  following 
13  a  copy  of  his  proposals,  which  is  not  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Reeside: 

<< '  We  do  agree  to  carry  the  mail  on  route  No.  1,231,  from  Hagerstown 
to  McConnellsville,  via  Welsh  Run  and  Mercersburgh,  as  advertised,  for  the 
yearly  compensation  of  forty  dollars;  or  we  will  carry  the  same  so  as  to 
connect  the  mail  at  each  place  with  the  great  eastern  and  western  mails, 
daily,  in  four-horse  post  coaches,  or  the  yearly  compensation  of  ninety-nine 
dollars  ninety-nine  dollars.'  " 

«  Mr.  Reeside  alleged  to  the  Postmaster  General  that  there  was  a  mistake 
in  the  sums  mentioned  in  his  bid;  that  the  word  c^atV?/  was  intended  by 
him  to  apply  alike  to  both  the  propositions;  that  is,  to  run  daily,  according 
to  the  schedule  advertised,  for  ;^1,400  a  year;  or  to  make  such  changes  in 
the  schedule,  and  give  such  increased  expedition  as  would  perfect  the  con- 
nexions, for  Si, 999,  being  one  dollar  less  than  ^2,000;  that  he  had  made 
out  the  sum  in  figures  with  a  pencil,  and  given  to  a  person  to  copy,  who  must 
have  niistaken  his  marks;  that  the  small  sum  of  §40  would  show  the  first  to 
be  an  error;  and  besides  the  snrrall  sum,  the  repetition  of  S99,  it  being  writtea 
twice  together,  will  show  the  second  t^be  an  error;  that  the  words  ^^ forty 
dollars^^  were  copied  from  what  he  intended  to  be  Sl>400;  and  the  words 
^^  ninety -nine  dollars  ninety-nine  dollars,^^  from  what  he  intended  to  be 
1^1,999.  It  being  deemed  expedient,  on  consideration  of  applications  to  the 
department  to  that  effect,  to  have  the  route  run  daily,  being  s  connecting 


33  [  S6  ] 

route  between  t'.vo  important  daily  routes,  he  was  directed,  verbally,  to  run 
the  route  daily,  and  told  that  the  error,  and  the  amount  of  the  compensation 
far  the  whole  service,  would  become  the  subject  of  future  consideration. 

"Subsequently,  and  soon  after  he  commenced  the  service,  the  following 
statement  was  reported  to  me  by  the  chief  clerk  of  the  department,  then  in 
charge  of  the  office  of  mail  contracts,  who  made  it  from  the  verbal  statement 
of  Mr.  Reeside,  then  present  at  the  department. 

"  'No.  1,231,  from  Hagerstown,  Maryland,  to  McConnellsburg, Pennsyl- 
vania, twenty-six  miles,  three  times  a  week,  four-horse  post  coaches — • 
James  Reeside,  at  S40.  Mr.  Reeside  says  the  bid  was  put  in  by  mistake, 
as  will  appear  from  the  small  sum.  He  intended  to  have  made  it  ^1,400, 
and  to  run  daily,  and  so  marked  it  witii  bis  pencil;  but  the  clerk  who  copied 
it  for  him  mistook  his  pencil  mark,  supposing  the  1  was  belonging  to  his 
dollar  sign,  and  the  0  at  the  right  hand  he  overlooked,  or  considered  it 
merely  a  point. 

"The  Postmaster  General  gave  him  a  verbal  order  to  run  daily,  and  re- 
served for  consideration  the  correction  of  the  error.  He  has  run  from  the 
beginning  of  the  year  daily.  Shall  he  be  allowed  to  correct  the  error,  and 
receive  Sl)400?  His  distance  is  increased  ten  miles.     No  other  bid.' 

"On  this  I  endorsed  '  grunted,''  and  a  contract,  as  appears  by  the  files, 
was  made  out  accordingly. 

"  '  In  the  above  statement  there  is  an  error,  for  there  were  several  other 
bids,  and  the  error  must  have  arisen  from  the  circumstance  that  three  other 
bids  which  were  accepted  to  Mr.  Reeside,  were  on  the  same  paper;  to  neither 
of  which  was  there  any  other  bid  than  his.  It  must  have  been  under  the 
impression  that  this  was  one  of  them,  when  it  was  noted  ^ no  other  hid.'' 

"  Immediately  upon  this  discovery,  the  contractor  was  notified  that  the 
whole  matter  would  be  re-examined,  and  such  reduction  made  from  his  pay 
on  the  route,  from  the  commencement  of  the  contract,  as  to  bring  the  com- 
pensation to  the  amount  at  which  it  would  have  been  fixed  when  he  was 
permitted  to  correct  the  error,  had  the  other  bids  been  examined  at  the 
same  time. 

"The  contract  was  made  with  James  Reeside,  to  carry  the  mail  from 
Hagerstown,  Maryland,  by  Welch  run,  Pennsylvania,  and  Mercersburg,  to 
McConnellstown,  daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  (and  it  appears  by  state- 
ments on  file,  that  it  is  carried  by  Greencastle,  increasing  the  distance  five 
miles  each  way,  making  ten  miles  additional  travel  each  day,)  at  $1,400  per 
annum,  from  1st  January,  1832,  to  31st  December,  1835. 

"In  reply  to  your  farther  inquiry,  I  have  to  state  that  there  has  been  no 
extra  allowance  upon  this  contract;  but  there  has  been  a  reduction  of  the 
annual  compensation  upon  it  to  the  sum  of  {5700,  and  a  reduction  of  the 
.service  to  tri-weekly,  ordered  in  November,  1833,  (to  have  effect  from  1st 
January,  1834,)  and  reported  to  the  Senate  in  the  list  of  curtailments  of 
mail  facilities,  3d  March,  1834.  This  reduction  was  made,  not  upon  any 
examination  into  the  circumstances  of  the  original  letting  and  contract,  (such 
examination  was  not  made,  nor  known  to  be  required,)  but  upon  a  report  of 
the  postmaster  at  Hagerstown,  that  a  portion  of  the  daily  service  on  this  route 
could,  without  serious  public  inconvenience,  be  dispensed  with. 

"I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 
««  Hon.  F.  Grundy,  "  W.  T.  BAKRY. 

"  (7A.  Com.  on  the  P.  0.  and  P.  Roads.'' 


[  S6  ]  34 

ll&  The  statemen  here  represented  to  have  been  made  by  James  Reeside  to 
the  PostmastertGeneral,  appears  to  your  committee  to  bear  the  stamp 
of  improbability  upon  its  very  face.  It  is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  the 
clerk  of  Mr.  Reeside,  in  copying  his  bid,  could  mistake  $1,400  for  $40, 
if  that  were  indeed  the  only  improbability  to  be  overcome  before  the  state- 
ment could  be  credited ;  but  in  the  concluding  paragraph  of  the  same  sentence 
occurs  what  he  calls  another  errror,  and  it  is  equally  extraordinary,  where 
$l,999fis  said  to  be  mistaken  for  $99.  It  is  remarkable  in  another  particu- 
lar, if  it  be  a  mistake  in  copying.  It  is  more  consistent  with  itself  than  that 
which  it  is  said  was  the  true  paper,  and  which  was  to  be  substituted  in  its 
place.  If  the  bid  were  $40  for  carrying  a  tri-weekly  mail,  then,  according 
to  the  pro  rata  established  by  the  present  Postmaster  General,  the  daily  mail 
should  bear  the  proportion  to  that  sum  which  7  does  to  3;  and  if  $40  be  the 
price  of  the  tri-weekly,  the  daily  mail  should  be  $93  33^,  within  $5  67  of  the 
improved  bid.  But  if  the  bid  for  a  tri-weekly  mail  were  $1,400,  then,  at  the 
same  ratio,  the  daily  would  be  $3,266  66|,  differing  $1,366  66|  from  the  alter- 
native of  that  which  is  alleged  to  have  been  the  intended  bid.  But  the  Postmas- 
ter General  says  in  the  paper  above  set  out,  that  Reeside  alleged  that  both 
alternatives  of  that  intended  bid  were  to  apply  to  daily  lines.  This  would, 
if  true,  imply  a  third  mistake  in  the  copying  clerk,  or  an  impossible  con- 
struction of  the  bid,  which  is  clear  enough  and  accurate  in  its  general 
language:  "  we  do  agree  to  carry  the  mail  on  route  number  1,231,  from 
Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg,  via  Welsh  run  and  Mercersburg,  as  adver- 
tised, for  the  yearly  compensation  of  $40;  or  we  will  carry  the  same  so  as 
to  connect  the  mail  at  each  place  with  the  great  eastern  and  western  mails, 
daily f  in  four-horse  post  coaches,  at  the  yearly  compensation  of  ninety-nine 
dollars  ninety-nine  dollars."  The  word  daily  could  not  have  been  intended 
to  connect  with  the  first  section  of  the  sentence.  Any  individual,  however 
uninformed  in  the  rules  of  construction,  would  at  once  perceive  that  it  could 
not  be  so  connected.  But  one  fact  is  decisive  on  the  subject;  the  first  clause 
of  the  sentence  proposes  to  carry  the  mail  ' '  as  advertised,"  and  it  was  ad- 
vertised to  run  tri  weekly;  and  it  is  so  stated  by  the  Postmaster  General 
in  the  above  cited  paper.  But  what  is  still  more  decisive  on  the  subject  is 
the  fact,  that  on  the  15th  of  October,  1831,  Reeside  executed  a  contract,  by 
which  he  bound  himself  to  carry  the  mail  on  this  route  tri-weekly  for  §40 
a  year.  See  Doc.  59.  On  the  whole,  it  would  seem  to  your  committee  that 
the  pretexts  used  by  this  individual  were  so  gross  and  palpable  that  it  would 
require  nothing  but  a  perusal  to  expose  them.  Still,  as  the  contractor  is  posi- 
tive in  his  assertions  that  the  bid  was  put  in  by  mistake,  and  as  the  Postmaster 
General  in  his  beforementioned  address  also  joins  in  the  assertion,  your 
committee  thought  it  their  duty  to  take  the  examination  of  several  witness- 
es on  that  point,  the  substance  of  whose  evidence  they  will  now  proceed  to 
detail. 

Daniel  Shaeffer  (See  Doc.  54,)  testifies  that  he  and  Andrew  Lindsay  were 
the  formercontractors  on  this  route;  that  they  put  in  a  bid  again  for  it  in  the  fall 
of  1831;  and  he  concludes  in  these  words:  ♦'  I  remained  in  Washington  until 
after  the  bids  were  given  in:  and  the  next  day  after  they  were  all  put  in,  I 
met  Reeside,  and  said  to  him,  well,  Colonel,  I  suppose  you  will  take  my 
route  from  me?  Yes,  said  he,  I  will  take  it  in  spite  of  every  body.  I  put 
in  for  that  route  at  $40  for  a  tri-weekly  mail,  and  for  a  daily  mail  ^90,  or 


35  [  56  J 

^90  odd.  You  need  not  be  uneasy  about  it;  I  will  establish  the  route  and 
give  you  as  much  stock  on  it  as  you  want.  This  was  after  the  bids  were  all 
given  ie.  and  before  the  contracts  were  cried  off." 

C.  W.  McKinstry  (See  Doc.  55,)  testifies  that  he  was  in  the  room  in  the  Ge- 
neral Post  Office  when  James  Reeside's  bid  on  the  route  from  HagerstoAvn  to 
McConnellsburg  was  announced;  that «'  at  thetimeof  lettingthis  contract  there 
was  a  good  deal  of  talk  among  the  contractors  as  to  how  Reeside  could 
take  it  so  low  as  $40.  Mr.  Reeside  said,  (I  think  it  was  in  the  room,  but 
before  I  left  the  General  Post  Office,)  that  the  reason  of  taking  it  so  low  w;is 
that  he  intended  to  connect  that  route  with  the  Eclipse  Line  established 
through  the  Glades  to  Wheeling.  I  do  not  recollect  who  it  was  that  wa? 
speaking  to  him  about  it;  his  observation  was  not  made  to  me,  but  being 
generally  addressed  to  those  near  him,  I  heard,  as  I  suppose  others  did." 

Elliot  T.  Lane  (See  Doc.  56,)beingsworn,  and  the  following  interrogatory 
propounded:  "Have  you  at  any  time  had  a  conversation  with  James  Reeside, 
concerning  his  contract  for  carrying  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnells- 
burg? If  so,  state  what  he  said" — Answers,  "  The  time  I  am  not  certain,  but  I 
know  it  was  soon  or  immediately  after  the  contract  was  given  out,  in  the  fall  of 
1831.  He  asked  me  what  1  supposed  he  had  taken  the  contract  at.  1  told  him  I 
supposed  he  would  get  an  increased  price,  as  his  stock  was  generally  good,  and 
stock  on  that  road  was  not  good.  He  then  stated  he  had  put  in  a  bid,  it  was  forty 
or  forty-five  dollars  for  every  other  day,  and  ninety,  or  somewhere  in  ninety 
for  an  every  day  stage.  We  had  a  good  deal  of  conversation  about  the 
contractors  on  the  national  road.  He  was  a  good  deal  excited,  and  said  he 
had  not  been  used  well  by  them.  He  said  that  rather  than  not  have  got  that 
cross  line  to  intersect  the  line  at  McConnellsburg,  he  would  have  given  the 
department  five  hundred  dollars  His  object  appeared  to  be  to  have  a  direct 
line  along  that  road  to  intersect  the  Wheeling  line." 

Jacob  Grove  (See  Doc.  57,)  heard  James  Reeside  say  that  he  had  contracted 
to  carry  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg;  and  states  the  conver- 
sation as  follows  : "  When  Culbertson  and  I  sold  out  our  contract  to  Siders  and 
Lewis,  we  were  talking  about  it,  we  got  295  dollars  from  Hagerstown  to 
Chambersburg,  three  times  a  week.  We  said  it  was  not  much.  Reeside 
said  he  carried  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg  for  forty  or 
forty-one  dollars,  I  forget  which."     This  was  about  two  years  ago. 

Silas  Harry  (See  Doc.  58,)  testifies  that  he  had  a  conversation  with  Reeside 
on  the  subject,  and  says,  "  a  short  time  after  the  contract  was  taken,  he  told  me 
he  had  taken  the  contract  at  forty  dollars.  I  asked  him  how  it  was  he  could 
carry  the  mail  for  that  price.  He  told  me  he  would  carry  it  for  nothing 
sooner  than  miss  it.  By  having  stock  on  that  line,  he  would  have  a  feeder 
for  his  great  line  from  Chambersburg  to  Pittsburg,  in  which  he  was  then  or 
about  to  be  engaged." 

This  evidence  puts  the  matter  beyond  doubt,  if  any  doubt  could  have  ex- 
isted on  a  bare  inspection  of  the  face  of  the  paper,  that  the  statement  of  mis- 
take  on  which  the  Postmaster  General  raised  the  allowance  to  James  Reeside 
on  this  route,  from  forty  dollars  a  year  to  one  thousand  four  hundred  dollars 
a  year,  was  a  sheer  fabrication  got  up  for  the  purpose.  So,  also,  the  repre- 
sentation of  0.  B.  Brown,  the  chief  clerk,  <*  that  there  was  no  other  didy" 
when  the  records  of  the  department  show  that  there  were  six  other  bids  on 
that  route. 


[  86  ]  36 

This  latter  error  the  Postmaster  General  admits  in  his  letter  above  set 
forth,  and  he  says  that  "immediately  upon  this  discovery,  the  contractor 
was  notified  that  tlic  whole  matter  would  be  ro-examined,  and  such  reduc- 
tion made  from  the  pay  on  this  route,  from  the  commmencent  of  the  con- 
tract, as  to  bring  the  compensation  to  the  amount  at  which  it  would  have 
been  fixed  when  he  was  permitted  to  correct  the  error,  had  the  other  bids 
been  examined  at  the  same  time." 

It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  this  matter  has  been  re-examined,  and 
the  money  thus  improperly  applied  to  the  use  of  this  contractor,  or  any  part 
of  it,  reclaimed.  In  the  account  of  James  Reeside,  made  out  for  this  com- 
mittee by  the  department,  and  received  on  the  8th  day  of  November,  1834, 
we  find  the  credits  for  transportation  on  this  route  as  follows:  (See  Doc.  1.) 


April  1,  1832, 
Same  date, 
July  1,  1832, 
Same  date, 
October  1,  1832, 
January,  I,  1833, 
April  1,  1833, 
July  1,  1833, 
October  1,  1833, 
January  1,  1834, 
Same  date. 


^10 
340 

10 
340 
S.^O 
350 
350 
350 
350 

10 
340 


Making  for  2  years'  transportation,      .  .  .        $2,800 

The  bid  of  Lindsay  and  ShaefTer,  for  the  same  time,  and  carry- 
ing the  mail  in  the  same  manner,  daily,  would  have  amount- 
ed to  ......        S),200 

That  of  Jos.  Boyd  to  .  .  .  .        Si, 000 

On  the  1st  of  April,  1834,  after  the  mail  ceased   to   be  carried 
daily,  and   became  tri-vveekly,  the  account  of  Reeside  is 
credited  thus: 
Hagerstown  to  McConnellstown,     .  .  .  .  glO 

Three  times  a  week  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  per  quarter,  165 

And  on  the  1st  of  July  it  is  credited,  .  .  .  175 


Being,  for  6  months,  .....  $350 

Or  at  the  rate  of  S700  a  year,  for  a  tri-weekly  mail,  in  four  horse  post  coaches, 
Lindsay  and  ShaefTer  bid  to  carry  it  in  like  manner  at  iS300  a  year;  Joseph 
Boyd  at  §300;  and  Thomas  H.  Boyd  at  $250, 

The  Postmaster  General,  in  his  letter  above  set  forth,  says  that  <'The 
contract  was  made  with  James  Reeside  to  carry  the  mail  from  Hagerstown, 
Maryland,  by  Welch  run  and  Mercersburg,  to  McConnellsburg,  daily,  in  four 
horse  post  coaches,  [and  it  appears  by  statements  on  file,  that  it  is  carried  by 
Greencastle,  increasing  the  distance  five  miles  each  way,  making  ten  miles 
additional  travel  each  day,]  at  S  1,400  per  annum,  from  Ist  January,  1832,  to 
31st  December,  1835."  To  the  clause  enclosed  by  the  brackets,  your  com- 
mittee would  now  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate. 

The  mail  was  in  fact  carried  by  Greencastle,  as  staled  m  the  parenthesis. 


37  [  86  ] 

but  it  is  there  so  slated  as  to  convey  the  idea  that  that  is  so  much  additional 
service  rendered  by  the  contractor  to  the  department.  Such,  however,  is 
by  no  means  the  case;  we  find  no  order  of  the  department  directing  such 
change  of  route,  and  no  service  was  in  fact  rendered  by  it;  no  mail  was  car- 
ried by  Ihe  contractor  to  Greencastle.  His  stages  were  sent  that  way  for 
his  own  convenience  merel}'',  and  in  performing  this  circuit  of  five  miles  he 
left  the  post  roiite^  and  the  post  office  at  Welsh  run  Vv^ithout  a  mail,  ex- 
cept as  it  was  supplied  by  the  postmaster,  who  went  to  Mercersburg  occasion- 
ally for  his  share  of  the  mail.  On  this  subject  your  committee  examined 
John  Watson,  the  postmaster  at  Greencastle,  (See  Doc.  60,)  who  stated  that, 
"there  was  a  stage,  said  to  be  a  mail  stage,  which  cam.e  round  by  Greencastle, 
commencing  in  January,  1S32,  and  ran  for  some  time, say  a  year,and  continues 
yet  to  run ;  I  see  it  going  through,"  He  adds  that,  "'  there  was  a  mail  in  Fe- 
bruary, 1S32,  brought  by  this  stage;  and  quit  some  time  in  the  same  year. 
In  running  through  Greencastle  the  stage  would  not  pass  the  Welsh  run  post 
office,  but  come  into  Mercersburg." 

And  Elliot  T.  Lane,  (See  Doc.  56,)  who  says,  '•  for  some  time  before  I  ceased 
to  act  as  postmaster  at  Mercersburg,  the  postmaster  at  Welsh  run,  or  his  depu- 
ty, used  to  come  about  once  a  week  for  his  mail,  and  take  it  from  my  office.  I 
understood  the  reason  why  this  was  done  was,  that  the  stage  ran  around  by 
Greencastle,  and  did  not  come  past  the  Welsh  run  post  office.  Sometimes 
in  the  winter  it  was  not  safe  for  the  mail  to  come  by  the  direct  road 
from  Hagerstown,  owing  to  ice  and  high  water  in  the  Conogocheage 
creek." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  if  the  stages  do  run  round  by  Greencastle,  they 
do  it,  not  in  pursuance  of  their  contract,  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  de- 
partment, but  of  the  contractor  himself.     (See  Doc,  65.) 

But  in  truth  the  mail  on  this  route  has,  since  about  the  1st  of  December, 
1833,  been  carried  on  horseback^  and  not  in  four  horse  post  coaches.  Lane 
testifies  that  he  ' '  received  a  letter  from  the  department,  dated  the  22d  No- 
vember, 1833,  stating  that  they  had  given  permission  to  the  contractor  to 
carry  the  mail  on  horseback  occasionally;  after  the  receipt  of  this  letter  the 
mail  was,  for  a  short  time,  carried  sometimes  on  horseback,  and  sometimes 
in  stages;  then  it  was  carried  entirel}'  on  horseback,  and  continued  till  I 
ceased  to  act  in  the  following  April,  no  mail  coming  by  the  stages,  which 
still  continued  to  run." 

And  Waison  says,  "about  harvest  last,  say  in  July,  I  saw  a  boy  on  horse- 
back who  told  me  he  was  carrying  the  mail."  And  John  Siders  testi- 
fies (See  Doc.  61,)  that  he  commenced  carrying  the  mail  on  horseback  on  this 
route  on  the  1st  November,  1833,  and  that  it  has  continued  to  be  so  carried, 
except  for  a  few  trips,  down  to  the  present  time. 

Through  the  various  pretexts  and  pretences  above  examined  and  exposed, 
there  has  been  paid  over  to  James  Reeside  of  the  public  moneys  belonging 
to  the  General  Post  Office,  down  to  the  1st  of  July,  1834,  inclusive,  upon 
that  route,  S2,932,  for  which  no  service  whatever  has  been  rendered.  The 
bid  of  Reeside  was  to  carry  the  mail  at  ^40  a  year,  triweekly,  in  four 
horse  j;ost  coaches,  or  daily  at  S99  a  year.  He  carried  it  daily  irom  the  1st 
of  January,  1833,  to  the  1st  of  December,  1833,  and  allowing  him  one 
month's  pay  for  discontinuance,  would  make,  in  two  years,  at  $99 

a  year,         - $198 


riI4i 


^a1-* 


20 


[  86  ]  38 

He  then  carried  itfrom  that  time  to  the  1st  of  July,  1834,  tri-weekly, 
on  horseback,  for  which  allow  him  the  rate  at  which  he  bid  to  carry 
it  in  four  horse  post  coacheg,  40  dollars  per  year,    - 

He  would  be  entitled,  in  the  aggregate,  to  '  '  '  '  '^.^  ?!? 
And  he  has  received  instead  •         '^^ 

Making  the  excess  -        -  _     -         -         -        -..".."     IMS- 

Which  is,  in  every  respect,  equivalent  to  a  gift  to  this  individual,  tainted 
with  this  additional  vice,  that  the  contract  has  been  taken  from  the  fair  and 
legal  contractor,  who  was  entitled  to  it  by  law  and  usage,  and  has  been  given 
to  this  individual,  who,  upon  no  principle  of  truth  or  fairness,  was  entitled 
to  receive  it.     See  Doc.  89. 

Reeside's  Contract — Bedford  to  Washington,  Pa. 
James  Reeside  was  also  the  contractor  to  carry  the  mail  on  the  route  from 
Bedford  to  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  tri-wtekly,  in  four  horse  post  coaches, 
from  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  to  the  31st  December,  1835,  at  $2,900  a 
year;  (See  Doc.  90;)  and  he  was  paid  for  carrying  the  mail  daily  on  the  same 
route,  from  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  to  the  1st  December,  1833,  the  addi- 
tional sum  of  $3,866  68  a  year,  for  one  year  and  eleven  months^  with  one 
month's  pay  added  for  discontinuing,  making  the  whole  allowance,  for  assu- 
med extra  service  on  this  route,  $7,733  36.    • 

Your  committee  examined  several  witnesses,  who  proved  conclusively 
that  the  mail  was  carried  upon  this  route  daily  no  more  than  about  eight 
tnonths\  that  is,  from  the  early  part  of  January,  1832,  to  the  beginning  of 
September,  in  the  same  year.  William  Lewis,  (See  Doc.  62,)  who  was  the 
agent  of  Reeside,  and  superintended  this  line  from  the  1st  of  April  to  the 
first  of  October,  1833,  is  the  most  exact  in  his  evidence  concerning  it.  He 
says,  that  shortly  after  the  commencement  of  the  contract  in  January,  1832, 
the  mail  began  to  run  daily  on  that  route,  and  <'  continued  until  a  few  days 
after  the  \st  of  September  of  same  year,  when  half  the  line  was  with- 
drawn,  leaving  it  a  tri-weekly  line,  at  which  it  continues  at  present.^' 

The  amount  of  extra  pay  to  which  this  contractor  would  have  been  enti- 
tled for  the  eight  months,  during  which  he  carried  the  mail  daily,  accord- 
in"-  to  the  manner  in  which  a. pro  rata  allowance  is  estimated  by  the  pre- 
sent Postmaster  General,  is  82,644  45.  He  has  received  $7,733  66  He 
has  thus  been  paid,  under  this  contract,  for  services  which  he  did  not  per- 
form, S5,089  21.  In  this  sum  is  included  the  month's  paj^  for  disconti- 
nuance, to  no  part  of  which  was  he  entitled,  as  he  discontinued  the  daily 
mail  at  his  own  option  without  the  order  of  the  department.  The  order  to 
discontinue  appears  to  have  been  made  fifteen  months  after  the  actual  dis- 
continuance took  place. 

During  the  year  1832  Abraham  Harback  (See  Doc.  63,)  was  a  partner  in 
the  contract  on  this  route  from  Bedford  to  Washington,  and  was  entitled  to  his 
share  of  this  extra  allowance,  if  any  were  in  fact  made  as  a  consideration  for 
extra  services;  and  it  will  be  seen  that  his  interest  in  that  line  continued  during 
the  whole  time  that  this  mail  was  carried  daily,  so  also  did  that  of  Lewis, 
but  neither  of  them  ever  heard  of  the  extra  allowance.  Harbach,  after 
stating  that  he  was  interested  in  that  contract  during  the  year  1832,  and 
that  James  Reeside  and  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker  conducted  the  business  and 
received  the  pay  from  the  department,  in  answer  to  the  enquiry  as  to  howr 


39  [  86  ] 

much  they  accounted  for  with  the  company,  says,  *<The  sum  (was)  $2,900, 
from  Mount  Pleasant  to  Washington.  I  did  not  understand  that  '*  there 
was  any  allowance  for  the  mail  from  Bedford  to  Mount  Pleasant;  if  there 
were  any  it  was  included  in  the  $2,900;"  and  Lewis  testifies  that  he  never 
knew  anything  of  an  extra  allowance  on  that  contract. 

Thus  it  appears  that  this  sum  of  $7,733  66,  expended  under  the  name  of 
an  extra  on  this  route,  was  not  received  by  the  company  who  rendered  the 
extra  service  during  the  short  time  that  such  extra  service  was  rendered, 
but  it  was  received  and  retained  by  James  Reeside,  under  what  compact) 
and  for  what  reason  your  committee  are  not  informed. 

Some  of  the  witnesses  testify  that  the  mail  continued  to  be  carried  daily 
from  Bedford  to  Mount  Pleasant  until  some  time  in  the  fall  of  1833. 
This  is  no  doubt  the  case,  but  it  was  not  as  part  of  the  line  from  Bedford  to 
Washington,  nor  under  the  same  contract.  The  contract  on  the  route  from 
Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg  required  that  there  should  be  carried  two  daily 
mails;  one  of  which  was  to  be  carried  from  Bedford,  by  Somerset  and  Mount 
Pleasant,  to  Pittsburg.  This  continued  to  be  so  carried  daily  until  the  fall 
of  1833,  when  that  also  ceased  as  a  daily  mail, and  was  carried  no  more  than 
every  other  day.     (See  Doc.  64,  65,  66,  and  91.) 

Reeside's  Contract  from  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap. 

The  attention  of  your  committee  has  also  been  again  drawn  more  particu- 
larly to  the  contract  of  James  Reeside  to  transport  the  mail  on  the  route 
from  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap,  (routes  1,215  and  1,230,)  which  is  noticed 
in  page  13  of  their  former  report. 

The  facta  and  circumstances  concerning  it,  as  they  now  appear  in  evi- 
dence, are  as  follows: 

The  distance  from  Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford  is  33  miles.  The  weight  of 
the  mail  on  this  part  of  the  route  is  said  by  John  Hofius,  the  postmaster  at 
Bedford,  to  range  from  twenty  to  forty  pounds.  *<0n  distribution  days," 
he  says,  "it  might  be  forty  pounds;  on  other  days,  about  one-half  or 
a  little  less."  The  other  part  of  the  route,  from  Bedford  to  Cumberland, 
is  mountainous  and  but  little  travelled.  It  passes  one  post  oflBce  at  Raines- 
burg,  the  net  proceeds  of  which  were  $28  28  the  year  ending  the  31st 
March,  1833.  Hoffius,  the  postmaster  at  Bedford,  testified  (See  Doc.  67,) 
that  the  mail  carried  on  this  part  of  the  route  would  not  average  ^ygjoowntfs 
in  weight,  and  he  adds,  **there  weresometimes  three  m^four  letters;  it  would 
not  average  so  many.^^  Such  were,  in  short,  the  claims  of  this  route  to  a 
heavy  expenditure  of  the  public  funds. 

Preparatory  to  the  lettings  in  1831,  proposals  were  published  for  carry- 
ing the  mail  on  both  these  routes,  once  a  week  on  horseback,  and  at  the 
lettings  they  were  bid  off  by  James  Clark,  at  $275  a  year,  to  be  carried 
pursuant  to  the  advertisement.  The  contracts  upon  these  routes,  however, 
changed  hands,  and  in  the  report  of  the  Postmaster  General  of  the  3d  of 
March,  1834,  (document  138,  page  198,)  James  Reeside  is  stated  to  be  the 
contractor  for  carrying  the  mail  from  Blair's  Gap  to  Cumberland  three 
times  a  week,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  at  the  annual  compensation  of 
S4,500.  And  on  the  25th  of  February,  1833,  he  was  directed  to  run  daily 
from  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap,  at  an  additional  compensation  of  ^2,911  72, 
making  in  the  aggregate  $7,411  72  a  year. 

Your  committee  called  for  the  papers  on  which  this  change  of  eontract 
was  ordered,  and  received  the  following: 


[  86  ]  40 

-  1st.   A  letter  (See  Doc.  No.  G8,)  from  Sil^.s  Moore  to  0.  B.  Brown,  dated 
at  Washinglon,  the  2  1th  of  .December,  1831,  in  which  he  says, 

"Having  understood  application  is  made  to  the  Post  OlFice  Department 
for  having  the  mail  carried  in  stages  from  Hollidaysburg  "to  Bedford,  from 
my  knowledge  of  that  section  of  the  country,,  the  inclinatipn  to  the  Bedford 
springs,  and  the  termination  of  the  Pennsylvania- canal  being  at  Hollidays- 
burg, must  necessarily  render  such  an  improvement  popular  with  the  de- 
partment, and  give  general  satisfaction  to  that  section  of  the  country." 
Under  this  is  written  a  postscript,  in  the  following  wo^ds: 
"Respecting  the  improvement  as  above  suggested,  from  my  knovvledgs 
of  that  section  of  the  country,  and  adjoining  our.-mail  route,  I  hope  the  ap- 
plicant may  succeed,"  &c.  (Signed)  WM.  COLDER.  . 

This  Wm.  Colder  appears  to  have  been,  at  that  time,  a  partner  of  Jarfies 
Reeside  in  a  contract  to  carry  the  mail  on  seven  other  routes;  and  Silas 
Moore  was  the  partner  of  Colder  on  one  or  more  routes,  on  which  the  contract 
price  was  §8,000,  and  on  w^hich  was  engrafted  an  extra  allowance  ofS7,300. 

Next  to  this  letter  of  Mr.  Moore,  and  the  postscript  of  Mr.  Colder,  fol- 
lows a  proposition  of  James  Reeside,  bearing  date  the  31st  of  December, 
1831,  in  the  following  words;  See  Doc.  No.  69. 

"No.  1215,  from  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap,  and  No.  1230,  from  Bedford  to 
Cumberland,  Md.  I  will  run  the  mail  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  and  con- 
nect with  each  end  of  the  routes  with  every  mail  that  may  be  ordered  by 
the  Post  Office  Department,  for  three  times  a  week,  and  give  such  expedi- 
tion as  may  be  required  by  the  department,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of 
84,500.  I  refer  you  to  the  Hon.  George  Bird's  letter,  and  also  to  Messrs. 
Colder  and  Moore." 

It  is  proper  here  to  note  that  no  letter  of  the  Hon.  George  Bird  was  fur- 
nished !))'■  the  officers  of  the  department  to  your  committee,  though  spe- 
cially applied  for  by  them. 

There  is,  then,  another  proposition  of  Reeside  addressed  to  the  Postmaster 
General,  (See  Doc.  No.  70,)  and  dated  the  lOM  of  Deeeniber,  1832,  in  which 
he  offers  to  perform  the  same  service  at  the  same  price  as  above,  but  accompa- 
nies it  with  a  statement  of  the  importance  of  the  route;  and  adds  that  stages  have 
been  established  on  No.  1215,  (Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap,)  for  several  years. 
On  this  paper  is  endorsed,  "  Contract  at  the  price  stated,"  and  "Decision 
made  April  5,  1832."  It  is  also  noted  on  the  same  paper,  "Contract  made 
April  13th,  1832."  Thus  the  acceptance  of  the  projjosition  contained  in 
this  paper  is  endorsed  upon  it  eight  months  before  the  date  of  the  paper  it- 
self, and  the  contract  made  in  pursuance  of  the  proposition  contained  in  the 
paper,  is  noted  on  it  as  having  been  executed  nearly  eight  mouths  before 
the  date  of  the  paper.  Circumstances  pretty  clearly  show  that  the  paper 
Avas  in  fact  written  before  the  5th  of  April,  1832,  but  yet  in  the  year  1832 
(as  no  one  is  likely  to  date  by  mistake  in  a  future  year.)  The, presump- 
tion is  tkat  the  writer,  intending  to  antedate  to  December,  1831,  did  in 
hct postdate  to  December,  1832. 

Next  in  order  is  the  contract  itself,  (See  Doc,  71,)  which  bears  date  theff- 
teenth  of  March,  1532,  twenty  days  before  the  decision  of  the  Postmaster 
General,  accepting  the  proposition  under  which  the  contract  was  made,  and 
twenty-nine  days  before  the  contract  is  on  that  paper  stated  to  have  been  made; 
and  that  this  false  date  was  inserted  by  design  and  not  by  accident  is  deducible 
from  the  fact  that  the  contract  is  made  to  take  effect  from  the  frst  day  of 


41  [  86  ] 

Jipril  then  nexl^  and  the  pay  is  made  to  commence  on  the  1st  of  April, 
1832.  This  confusion  of  dates,  or  a  total  want  of  all  dates,  is  common 
among  the  papers,  and  in  the  most  important  transactions  of  the  department. 
The  act  of  antedating  to  the  loth  of  March  this  paper,  which  was  not  exe- 
cuted until  the  15th  of  April,  gave  to  Reeside  this  contract  from  the  1st  of 
April  next,  before  it  was  executed,  and  after  it  was  dated.  But  all  this 
would  be  the  less  reprehensible  if  it  had  been  done  by  way  of  securing  to 
the  contractor  his  pay  for  services  actually  rendered  before  executing  the 
contract.  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case.  The  evidence  shows  that  James 
Clark,  the  original  contractor,  continued  to  carry  the  mail  on  this  route  to 
the  27th  of  April,  1832,  faithfully,  under  his'contract.  The  following, 
which  is  a  copy  of  one  of  two  certificates  furnished  us  from  the  files  of  the 
department,  establishes  that  fact:   (Doc.  No.  72.) 

''I  do  certify  that  James  Clark,  the  contractor  for  carr3^ing  the  mail  from 
Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap,  has  duly  delivered  the  mail  at  AllumBank  post 
office,  from  1st  January,  1832,  to  27th  April,  1832,  twice  a  week. 

(Signed)  "THOMAS  VICKORY, 

^^ Postmaster  at  Alluvi  Bank.^^ 

We  found  noted  also,  in  pencil,  on  the  margin  of  this  contract,  a  refer- 
ence to  two  reports  of  J.  H.  Hofius,  postmaster  at  Bedford,  one  of  the  4th 
of  June,  and  the  other  the  28th  of  July,  IS32,  which  are  as  follows: 

'-Post  Office,  Bedford,  Pa.,  June  4,  1832. 
"Sir:  Mr.  Reeside  &  Co.  have  commenced  the  2Sth  of  May,   ultimo,  to 
convey  the  mail  three  times  a  week  on  route  1215,  Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford, 
and  1230,  Bedford  to  Cumberland,  on  horseback,  but  have  not,  as  yet,  com- 
menced in  stages. 

"Yours,  very  respectfully, 
(Signed)  ,  "J.  H.  HOFIUS." 

"Post  Office,  Bedford,  Pa.,  July  28,  1832. 
"Sir:  The  26th  inst.  Mr.  Reeside  commenced   with  a  two  horse   coach, 
on  route  No.  1230,  from   Bedford  to  Cumberland,  to  convey  the  mail,  but 
on  route  1215,  Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford,  is  still  performed  on  horseback. 

"Yours,  very  respectfully, 
(Signed)  .  "J.  H.  HOFIUS." 

And  yet,  with  all  this  evidence  in  the  possession  of  the  department, 
Reeside  has  been  paid  at  the  rate  oi  four  thousand  five  hundred  dollars 
a  year  for  carrying  the  mail  on  this  route,  iufour  horse  post  coaches  from 
the  \st  of  Jipril^  1832.  The  letter  of  Moore,  with  the  postscript  written 
by  Colder,  recommended  only  that  the  mail  be  carried  in  coaches  from 
Hollidaysburg,  or  Blair's  Gap,  to  Bedford;  not  from  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land. Yet,  the  mode  of  transporting  the  mail  on  both  the  routes  was 
changed,  and  coaches  ordered  to  run  on  both,  at  the  bid  of  Reeside,  without 
any  thing  which  shows  its  propriety,  or  even  the  wish  of  a  human  being  on 
the  whole  route  that  it  should  \i&  done;  at  a  cost,  too,  enormous  in  propor- 
tion to  the  proceeds  of  the  offices  on  both  the  routes,  especially  on  that 
from  Bedford  to  Cumberland. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Reeside,  in  his  proposition  of  December  10th, 
1832,  says  "  that  stages  has  been  established  on  route  No.  1215,  for  several 


[  86  ]  42 

years  past."  If  that  be  the  case,  as  it  probably  is,  they  wore  established 
without  the  patronage  of  the  department,  and  for  the  profit  of  transporting 
passengers  during  (he  summer,  when  the  springs  were  frequented.  And  it 
Reeside  himself  were  not  the  individual  who  established  or  owned  them, 
this  arrangement  with  the  department  would  at  once  enable  him  to  put 
down  the  individual  ivliose  enterprise  had  established  them;  and  the  $4225 
a  year,  which  Reeside  at  first  received  above  tb.e  original  contract  price 
for  carrying  this  nail,  would  be  merely  a  bounty  for  putting  down  this  at- 
tempt at  individual  enterprise^  for  the  department  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  benefited  in  any  way,  except  that  of  an  increased  nu;nber  of  trips,  by 
the  establishment  of  this  as  a  n^.ail  stage  route. 

The  evidence  shows  that  this  contract  of  Reeside  was  not  complied  with 
for  a  single  year.  Hofius,  the  postmaster  at  Bedford^  says,  the  mail  was 
carried  for  about  eight  months  in  the  year,  partly  in  four  horse  post 
coaches,  and  parti}'  in  three  iiorse  post  coaches,  and  about  four  months  on 
horseback.  The  testimony  of  William  Lewis  is  more  specific.  (Doc.  No.  62). 
He  was  superintendent  on  the  line,  and  speaks  with  certainty  of  the  matter. 
He  says,  "  I  superintended  the  line  from  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap  for  six 
months,  in  1833,  from  first  of  April  to  1st  of  October,  and  I  know  how 
it  was  run  the  winter  previous.  It  was  carried  on  horseback,  and  until 
some  time  about  the  middle  of  Ma}',  when  we  put  on  four  horses  from 
Cumberland  to  Burts,  and  from  thence  to  Bedford  two  horses.  It  ran 
every  other  day;  it  was  a  tri-weekly  line."  Hofius  says  that  in  the  win- 
ter, when  the  roads  were  bad,  stages  could  not  be  used  on  ibis  line. 

It  is  difficult  to  discover  what  advantage  could  result  to  the  public,  or  to 
the  department,  by  an  attempt  to  force  the  transportation  of  the  mail, 
especially  a  mail  weighing  less  than  five  pounds,  and  xjontaining,  on  an 
average,  two  or  three  letters,  in  faur  horse  post  coaches,  on  a  road  imprac- 
ticable duringone  third  of  the  year.  But  what  is  especially  reprehensible  is, 
the  paying  this  enormous  sum  for  the  agreement  to  perform  this  unneces- 
sary labor,  and  then  permitting  the  labor  to  go  unperformed.  -  For  it 
will  be  seen  by  the  account  of  Reeside,  herewith  exhibited,  (Doc.  No.  1) 
that  he  is  paid  from  the  first  of  April,  1S32,  to  the  first  of  July,  1834,  nine 
quarters,  for  carrying  ihe  mail  on  this  route  in  four  horse  post  coaches  tri- 
weekly, Sii25  per  quarter,  being  ^10,125. 

J.  W.  Weaver  (Doc.  No.  64)  a  witness  examined  also  by  your  committee, 
proves  in  substance  the  same  facts  as  testified  to  by  Wm.  Lewis.  He  says  he 
was,  from  the  commencement  of  Recside'^s  contract,  his  sub-contracloron  that 
line  until  the  1st  of  April,  1833.  And  that  he  received  for  carrying  the 
mail  on  the  whole  route  during  that  time  ^1500  a  year,  which,  according 
to  the  first  allowance  of  $4500,  would  leave  Reeside  a  clear  ani>'jal  income 
upon  this  route  of  §3000,  without  any  service  whatever  rendered,  or  any 
expense  incurred  as  an  equivalent. 

Here  then  is  a  case  of  a  private  contract  made  by  the  department  with 
this  individual,  without  notice  of  any  kind  to  the  public  inviting  compe- 
tition, and  a  sum  is  paid  him  for  stipulated  services  for  one  third  part  of 
which  he  procures  an  individual  living  on  the  spot  to  render  those  services, 
and  exonerate  him  froiii  all  trouble  or  cost  on  account  of  it.  If  an  adver- 
tisement calling  for  proposals,  had  been  inserted  but  a  single  day  in  the  Bed- 
ford papers,  and  time  had  been  given  for  bidders  to  come  forward  with  their 
offers,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  department  could  have  procured  this  ser- 
vice to  be  rendered  as  cheaply  as  Mr.  Reeside  has  procured  it.     Why  was  no 


43  [  S6  ] 

this  clone?  The  law  requires  it,  and  a  true  and  just  administration  of  the 
public  funds  for  the  public  benefit  would  seem  also  to  require  it.  The 
commitiee  have  already  referred  to  two  certificates  on  file  in  tiie  depart- 
ment; one  of  J.  H.  liofius,  the  postmasier  at  Beclford,  which  is  set  out 
above,  and  the  other,  of  like  tenor,  by  Thomas  Vickory,  postmaster  at 
Allum  Bank,  in  which  they  certify  that  James  Clarke,  contractor  for  car- 
rying the  mail  from  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap,  has  duly  delivered  the 
mail  at  their  respective  offices,  from  the  1st  of  January  to  the  27th  of  April, 
1832.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  account  of  James  Reeside  is  credited  at 
the  rate  of  iS4500  a  year,  for  carrying  the  mail  on  the  same  route,  from  ike 
first  ofjlpril,  1832,  twenty  seven  days  before  Jas.  Clarke  ceased  to  carry  it. 
Doc.  No.  1).  The  amount  thus  paid  to  Reeside  for  the  twenty-seven  days 
that  James  Clarke  carried  the  mail,  and  that  he,  Reeside,  did  not  carry  it,  is 
S331  9G,  and  is  m.ore  by  $5Q  90  than  tliat  legal  and  faithful  contractor 
was  to  receive  for  actually  cca^ryimx  the  mail,  through  fair  and  foul,  for  a 
^^'hole  year.  It  further  appears,  by  the  letters  of  Hufius  to  the  Postmaster 
General,  above  set  forth,  that  Reeside  did  not  begin  to  carry  the  mail  three 
times  a  week  on  horsebaek  until  the  2SthofMay.  For  these  thirty-one 
days,  between  the  27th  of  April  and  the  28th  of  May,  he  received  v&373  55. 
But  if  Clarke,  the  original  contractor,  had  continued  to  carry  it  for  the 
same  time,  and  precisely  in  the  same  manner,  he  would 'have  been  entitled 
to  no  more  than  s$^3  25.  Again,  from  the  2Sth  of  May  to  the  26th  of 
July,  Mr.  Reeside  carried  the  same  mail  three  tim.es  a  week  on  horsebncky 
and  received,  for  this  service,  $733  45;  and  John  VV.  Weaver,  who  was  a 
sub-contractor  on  this  route  under  Reeside,  testifies  that  the  mail  was  car- 
ried, from  the  last  of  October  to  the  first  of  April,  1832,  on  horseback.  For 
this,  Reeside  received  at  the  rate  of  §4,500  a  year,  until  the  commence- 
mencemerit  of  his  ea-Zra  allowance  on  the  1st  of  March,  J  833,  and  from 
that  till  the  1st  of  April,  at  the  rale  of  S7411  73  a  year;  making  for  these 
five  months,  of  a  horse  mail,  §2049  94.  For  all  the  time  that  the  mail  was 
carried  by  Reeside  on  this  route,  on  horseback,  between  the  1st  of  April, 
1832,  and  the  1st  of  April,  1833,  we  can  make  a  very  exact  comparison 
between  the  compensation  received  by  hiin  and  that  received  by  the  original 
contractor,  James  Clarke,  or  which  might  have  been  paid  to  him,  under  his 
contract,  for  the  same  and  sirailar  services. 

It  has  been  shown  that  Reeside  received,  before  he  commenced  to  carry 
the  mail,  or  perform  any  service,  from  the  1st  to  the  27th  April,  5-331  9G 
From  the  27th  of  April  to  the  2Sth  of  May,  while  the  mail  was 

carried  by  him  toeekly  on  horseback  .  .  _         373  55 

From  the  2Sth  of  May  to  the  26lh  of  July,  during  which  it  was 

carried  on  horseback  tri-weekly,       -  _  -  .         733  45 

From  the  Ist  of  November,  1832,  to  the  1st  of  April,  1833, 
during  which  time  the  mail  was  again  cdriied  on  horseback 
tri-ioeekly     -------      2,049  94 


Making  in  the  aggreg'^te,  for  carrying  the  mail  on  horseback 

within  that  year         .  -  .  -  .  -  i?3,4SS  90 

If  James  Clark,  the  original  contractor,  had  performed  the  same  service 
precisely,  he  would  have  been  entitled,  upon  Uie  basis  of  his  contract,  )o  have 
been  paid  the  following  sums  : 

From  the  1st  to  the  27th  of  April,  1832;  while  nothing  loas  done,  he 
would  have  been  entitled  to  nofhimr. 


[  S6  ]  44 

For  carrying  the  mail  weekly,  from  the  27lh  of  April  to  the  28th 

of  May,  at  ^275  a  year         -  -  -  -  -         §23  25 

Tri-weekly  on  horseback,  from  the  28th  of  May  to  the  26th  of 
July,  at  $125,  which  is  three  times  his  contract  price,  the  mail 
being  tri-weekly  instead  of  weekly  -  -  -  -  SS  -"^O 

Tri-weekly  on  horseback,  from  the  1st  of  October,  1832,  to  the 

1st  of  April,  1833,  at  S725  a  year     -  -  -  -         343  75 

Making  in  the  aggregate  g455  50 

Which  sum  of  $455  50  is  all  that  James  Clarke  would  have  been  en- 
titled  to  receive,  on  the  basis  of  his  contract,  for  the  same  service  for  whicli 
Reeside  was  paid  $3,488  90.  And  James  Clarke,  to  have  entitled  himself 
to  receive,  on  the  basis  of  his  contract,  the  money  which  has  been  paid  to 
Reeside  for  his  7iine  months^  service,  must  have  performed  the  like  service 
for  Jive  years  rane  months  and  twenty  days.  This  difference  is  too  great 
to  rest  upon  principles  of  equal  justice.  Nor  does  this  transaction  stop  here: 
Reeside,  by  his  agent,  or  sub-contractor,  after  the  26th  of  July,  1832,  car- 
ried the  mail  on  this  route,  when  it  suited  his  own  convenience,  in  coaches, 
and  when  it  suited  him  better  he  carried  it  on  horseback.  It  is  perfectly 
evident  that  his  own  pleasure  and  his  own  convenience  were  alone  consulted 
on  that  subject.  And  on  the  14th  of  February,  1833,  at  a  time  when  it  is 
proved,  by  both  Weaver  and  Lewis,  that  he  was  carrying  the  mail  on 
horseback,  we  find  the  following  letter  addressed  by  him  to  the  Postmaster 
General.     (Doc.  No.  73.) 

^'February  14,  1S33. 
''Sir:  The  citizens  of  Bedford,  Pennsylvania,  desire  that  a  daily  mail 
be  run  between  Bedford  and  Hollidaysburg,  the  latter  being  a  place  of 
great  importance,  being  at  the  junction  of  the  Pennsylvania  canal  and 
railroad,  and  an  intercourse  of  communication  being  very  great  between  the 
two  points.  J  will  agree  to  perform  the  service  at  a  pro  rata  allowance,  and 
put  the  arrangement  into  effect  in  ten  days. 

"Very  respectfully,  &c., 

"JAMES  REESIDE. 
'  ''Hon.  Wm.  T.  Barry,  P.  M.  G." 

Across  the  paper  is  written,  in  the  hand  of  the  Postmaster  General, 
"granted;"  and  Reeside  is  credited  on  the  books  of  the  department  for  a 
DAILY  MAIL  between  Blair's  Gap  and  Bedford,  at  the  rate  of  $2,911  72  a 
year  additional,  from  the  1st  of  March  to  the  1st  of  December,  1833,  with 
one  month  additional  credit  for  discontinuance,  in  all  amounting  to  §2,434- 
52.  It  is  proved  conclusively  by  Hofius,  the  postmaster  at  Bedford,  and 
by  Lewis,  then  the  agent  of  Reeside,  and  his  superintendent  on  that  very 
line,  that  no  such  daily  mail  was  carried  during  that  time,  though  coaches 
may  perhaps  have  run  daily  for  a  short  time  for  the  sake  of  the  profit  de- 
rived from  passengers  who  were  visiters  to  the  Bedford  Springs.  Hofius 
says  it  was  a  tri-weekly  mail — but  ^^fortwo  or  three  weeks  in  the  seaso7i  of 
the  springs  it  run  daily  I  think — I  do  not  recollect  whether  they  brought 
the  mall  daily,  or  not."  And  Lewis,  speaking  of  tlie  route,  says  "it  ran 
every  other  day — it  was  a  tri-weekly  line — it  never  ran  dail}''  at  anytime 
to  my  knowledge."  And  it  will  be  recollected  that  this  witnesssuperintend- 
ed  the  route  for  Reeside,  from  the  1st  of  April  to  the  1st  of  October,  1833, 


45  [  86  ] 

the  time  at  which  Reesidfe  is  paid  84,500  a  year  for  carrying  the  mail  in  four 
four  horse  post  coaches  Iri-weekly,  and  02911  72  extra  for  carrying  \\.daily. 
It  was  in  fact  carried  this  year  tri-weekly ,  and  it  was  carried  on  horseback 
to  the  middle  of  May,  and  the  residue  of  the  summer  and  fall  partly  in  four 
and  partly  in  two  horse  post-coaches.  On  this  route  Reeside  received,  from 
the  1st  of  April,  1832,  to  the  1st  of  July,  1834,  including  extras^  an  aggre- 
gate sum  of  §12,559  52^  to  but  a  very  small  portion  of  which  he  was  en- 
titled, for  any  valuable  services  actually  rendered  to  the  department  or  to 
the  public. 

JReeside's  contract,  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg. 

The  route  from  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg  appears  to  have  been  struck 
off  to  James  Reeside,  in  October,  1831,  at  Si, 900  a  year,  to  run  daily  in 
four  horse  post-coaches.  In  the  letter  of  the  Postmaster  General,  of  the  3d 
of  March,  1834,  in  which  he  professes  to  give  all  the  extra  allowances 
which  have  been  made  to  contractors  since  the  1st  of  April,  1829,  there  is 
no  mention  of  any  increased  allowance  on  this  route.  Nevertheless,  in  the 
account  of  James  Reeside,  furnished  to  this  committee  by  the  department, 
he  is  credited  with  transportation  on  this  route  at  the  rate  of  §3,495  a  year, 
for  two  years  and  three  months,  from  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  to  the  1st 
of  April,  1834.  (Doc.  No.  1).  To  ascertain  the  cause  of  this  discrepancy, 
your  committee  called  for  such  official  papers  as  might  be  in  the  department, 
relating  to  the  matter,  and  were  furnished  with,  first,  a  paper  of  the  following 
tenor: 

"  Mr.  SuTOR,  Pay  Clerk. 

^'  The  contract  pay,  per  annum,  on  route  No.  1388,  from  Baltimore 
to  Chambersburg,  is  $1,900,  and  I  find  no  additional  allowance  en- 
dorsed on  contract.  Be  pleased  to  inform  me  what  pay  is  made  from  the 
pay  list  on  the  route:  James  Reeside,  contractor. 

''  S.  R.  H." 

"  The  amount  paid  on  the  above  route  is  $3,495  per  annum. 

"JNO.  SUTOR. 

"  Difference  is  $1,595.     See  order  for  increased  expedition." 

2d.  A  paper  in  the  handwriting  of  James  Reeside,  having  neither  date 
nor  signature,  in  the  following  words: 

''  Leave  Baltimore  daily,  at  4  A.  M.,  or  after  the  arrival  of  the  eastern 
mail  from  Philadelphia,  arrive  at  Chamberburg  by  8  P.  M.  Leave  Cham- 
bersburg daily  at  5  A.  M,,  or  after  the  arrival  of  the  western  mail  from 
Pittsburg,  arrive  in  Baltimore  by  8  P.  M.  By  this  arrangement  the 
mail  will  run  through  each  way,  between  Baltimore  and  Pittsburg,  in  two 
days,  which  I  agreed  in  my  proposals,  for  §3,490." 

And  3d.  A  scrap  of  paper,  which  appears  to  have  been  part  of  an  en- 
velop, on  which  is  written,  chiefly  in  red  ink,  the  following: 

"  No.  1388, 

'<  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  the  schedule  is,  to  leave  Baltimore  at  4 
A.  M.,  arrive  at  Chambersburg  the  same  day  at  9  P.  M.,  17  hours,  to 
form  a  connexion  with  the  rapid  line  at  Chambersburg,  so  as  to  run  from 
Baltimore  to  Pittsburg  in  52  hours:  it  will  be  necessary  so  to  expedite  as 
to  arrive  at  Chambersburg  by  3  P.  M.     Shall  the  expedition  be  ordered  ?" 

Across  which  is  written  in  black  ink,  in  the  hand  of  the  Postmaster 
General,     "  Direct  the  expedition." 


[  86  ]  46 

This  application  for  increased  expedition  and  the  consequent  increased 
pay^rests  entirely  I'pon  the  allegalion,  that  it  was  necessary  to  arrive  at 
Chambersburg  at  '6  o'clock  P.  M.  instead  of  9  P.  M.,  the  hour  fixed  by 
the  schedule,  in  order  to  connect  with  the  rapid  line  from  Phdadelphia  to 
Pittsburg.  It  is,  however,  the  undoubted  fact,  that  no  such  necessity,  nor 
even  the  semblance  of  such  necessity,  ever  for  a  moment  existed.  The  mail 
from  Baltimore  did,  it  seems,  by  the  first  schedule,  arrive  at  Chambersburg  at 
9  o'clock  P.  M.  John  Findley,  (Doc.  No.  74)  the  postmaster  at  Chambers- 
burg, testifies,  that the^/a*/ line  from  Philadelphia,  when  it  first  ran,  came  there 
about  10  o'clock  P.  M. ;  it  was  then  changed,  and  arrived  from  4  to  8  in  the 
iTiorning.  The  earliest  hour  of  its  arrival  was,  therefore,  one  hour  later  than 
Baltimore  mail  before  the  supposed  order  for  increased  expedition;  so  that  the 
no  change  was  at  first  necessary  in  order  to  connect  with  the  rapid  line;  and 
indeed,  after  a  short  time,  though  the  precise  date  is  not  in  the  possession 
of  tlie  committee,  the  Philadelphia  mail  did  not  arrive  at  Chambersburg 
until  S  or  10  hours  after  the  required  arrival  of  the  Baltimore  mail,  as  by 
the  original  contract.  There  was  no  reason,  therefore,  for  paying  a  large 
extra  for  increase  of  speed.  Reeside,  in  his  testimon}-  before  t!ie  com- 
mittee, on  the  21st  of  INIay  last,  makes  out  a  very  different  case  from  that 
which  is  made  by  the  files  of  the  department.  Instead  of  starting  from  Bal- 
timore at  the  same  hour,  and  so  expediting  as  to  arrive  at  Chambersburg  at 
3  P.  M. ,  as  is  there  represented,  he  says, 

''  We  were  ordered,  instead  of  leaving  Baltimore  at  3  in  the  morning,  to 
hold  back  until  7  o'clock  A.  M.,  which  made  an  increase  of  four  hours  in 
speed,  our  arrivals  at  Chambersbui^g  continuing  nearly  the  same.  The 
reason  why  we  kept  back  till  7  o'clock  was,  that  vve  might  form  a  con- 
nexion with  the  Washington  city  line,  by  means  of  which  the  mail  from 
that  city  to  Pittsburg  gained  one  day." 

So  that  Reeside,  in  his  testimony,  reverses  the  order  entirel}^  By  the 
order  of  the  department,  if  in  truth  any  ever  issued,  he  was  to  leave  Balti- 
more at  the  usual  time,  and  arrive  six  hours  earlier  at  Chambersl^urg,  to 
perfect  a  connexion  with  the  rapid  line  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh. 
Reeside  swears  that  he  was  to  remain  four  hours  later  at  Baltimore,  for  the 
purpose  of  forming  a  connexion  with  the  Washington  city  mail,  and  that 
he  was  so  to  expedite  as  to  arrive  at  Chambersburg  at  the  usual  hour.  But 
it  is  all  alike  unsupported  by  the  evidence;  no  increased  expedition  appears 
to  have  been  made  in  any  Vv'ay  or  any  manner  upon  that  line.  (Docs.  No. 
75,  76,  61,  77). 

From  the  evidence  it  appears  that  the  time  of  departure  of  that  mail  from 
Baltimore  was  very  irregular  during  the  first  six  months  of  the  year  lS3.i. 
In  the  latter  part  of  July,  *or  the  beginning  of  August,  it  became  regular, 
leaving  Baltimore  at  7  o'clock,  A.  M.,  and  it  has  continued  to  set  out  at 
about  the  same  hour  since  that  time.  But  instead  of  arriving  at  Chambers- 
"burg  at  3  P.  M.  as  is  said  in  the  papers  filed  in  the  department,  or  at  9 
T.  M.  as  stated  by  Reeside  in  his  testimony,  its  average  hour  of  arrival 
luas  been  from  11  to  13  o'alock  at  night,  making  in  fact  tlie  same  speed  as 
per  original  contract;  that  is,  through  in  from  16  to  17  hours  John 
Findley,  the  postmaster  at  Chambersburg,  says,  "lam  not  certain  as  to 
th^  arrivals  in  1S32,  but  from  the  first  of  1S3.S  it  has  averaged  11  at  night, 
or  over,  .sometimes  before,  often  later,  once  at  9,  and  again  as  late  as  2. 
And  Thomas  Lindsay,  who  was  a  sub-contractor  on  this  line  at  the  time  of 
this  alleged  increase  of  expedition,  teslified   before   the  committee  that  he 


47  [  SG  ] 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  reason  which  was  assumed  fur  increasing  the  ex- 
pedition on  this  line  did  not  exist,  and  that  in  fact  the  expedition  was  not 
increased;  nevertheless  James  Recside  has  received  of  the  funds  of  the  de- 
partment from  thelst  of  Janiiarv,  1S32,  to  the  1st  of  April.  1834,  $3588  75 
for  that  assumed  increase  of  exjTedition. 

TJHie  above  route  is  noticed  in  the  report  of  your  committee  of  the  9th  of 
June  last  (page  12)  as  one  in  which  the  additional  service  was  not  worth 
Is  cost  to  the  public.  But  there  was,  in  fact,  no  additional  service  render- 
ed by  the  contractor,  and  your  committee  was  led  into  the  error  of  sup- 
posing that  there  was  some  actual  increase  of  expedition  on  that  line,  and 
by  the  testimony  of  James  Reeside,  above  referred  to.  A  strict  examination 
into  the  true  circumstances  of  the  case  have  enabled  them  to  correct  that  error. 

Route  from  Philadelphia  io  Pittsburg. 

The  route  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh  was,  in  1S27,  let  out  in  three 
divisions.  The  first  from  Philadelphia  to  Karrisburg,  the  second  to  Cham- 
bersbiu'g,  and  the  third  to  Pittsburgh;  the  whole  distance  to  be  run  in  about 
sixty  hours,  exclusive  of  the  time  that  the  mail  was  detained  ai  the  towns 
of  Harrisburg  and  Chambersburg.  But  in  consequence  of  an  imperfect 
connection  of  the  lines  at  thcfo  two  places,  there  was  about  three  days  and 
ten  hours  spent  on  the  way.  In  the  early  part  of  the  year  1831  the  wes- 
tern stage  company,  who  at  that  time  had  the  contract  of  the  whole  route 
"frotn  Pliiladelphia  to  Pittsburgh,  put  on  a  second  line  of  coaches,  and  car- 
ried in  it  the  mail  from  city  to  city,  which  was  opened  on  the  way  only  at 
Chambersburg;  and  by  carrying  the  heavy  mail  in  the  old  line,  the  new 
one  perfornied  the  whole  route  in  about  sixty  hours  from  city  to  cily. 
This  establishment  of  the  second  line  of  coaches,  the  separation  of  the  iriail, 
so  as  to  carry  the  principal  mail  in  one  coach  and  the  way  mail  in  another, 
as  also  the  increased  speed  of  the  lime  of  the  coaches  carrying  the  principal 
mail,  was  the  act  of  the  stage  company  alone,  and  done  for  their  own  bene- 
fit. It  was  an  arrangement  made  by  men  acute  to  discover  their  own  in- 
terest, and  prompt  to  seize  on  every  occasion  to  advance  it.  It  was  proba- 
bly rendered  necessar}'  by  the  competition  for  passengers  which  existed  be- 
tween them  and  the  company  established  on  the  national  road  from  Balti- 
more to  Wheeling,  who  have  a  stage  line  parallel  to  theirs,  and  so  nearly 
equal  in  its  advantages  that  travellers  would  generally  be  determined  in 
their  clioice  of  routes  by  the  expedition  and  accommodation  afforded  on  the 
respective  lines.  The  manner  in  which  this  line  from  Philadelphia  to 
Pittsburgh  has  been  run  since  the  1st  of  April,  1831,  is  shown  by  the  testi- 
mony of  William  Thompson,  the  agent  for  the  stage  company  residing  at 
Chambersburg.      He  says,    (Doc.  No.  78.) 

"  Tiiere  was  but  one  daily  mail  from  1st  of  January  to  1st  of  April, 
1831 ;  then  there  was  an  additional  daily  line  called  the  Good  Intent,  which 
continues  until  the  present  time.  From  the  1st  of  April,  1831,  the  average 
was  about  60  hours  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  for  the  fast  line:  the 
slow  line  most  of  the  time  takes  three  days  and  a  half,  carrying  the  way 
mail:  there  has  been  no  permanent  alteration  in  the  expedition  of  the  fast 
line  since  1831,  April  1.    Sometimes  it  ran  through  in  less  time  than  others." 

Preparatory  to  the  lettings  in  October,  1831,  after  the  mail  had  been  car- 
ried for  about  six  months  precisely  in  the  manner  that  it  was  afterwards 
thought  fit  to  carry  it,  and  in  which  it  is  now  carried,  we  find  it  advertised 
to  run  through  on  that  route  in  about  three  days  and  nine  houVs,  instead  of 
two  days  and  about  twelve  hours,  as  it  was  tunning  at  the  I'me  the  adver- 


[  86  ]  48 

tisement  for  the  mail  to  go  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg  was  but  about 
one  hour  less  than  the  time  allowed  in  1827.  But  the  speed  required  by  that 
•of  1S31  was  by  no  means  equal  to  that  which  was  required  in  1827,  for  it 
will  be  observed  that'the  mail  was  delayed  at  Harrisburg  6  hours,  and  at 
Chambersburg  11  hours,  making  a  delay  by  the  way  of  17  hours;  so  that 
the  mail  was  in  fact  ndverthed  in  1831  to  be  carried  more  slowly  on  this 
route,  if  we  deduct  the  time  necessary  for  the  change  of  mail  at  Harrisburg 
and  Chambersburg,  by  at  least  15  hours  than  it  was  required  to  be  run  by 
the  contract  of  1827.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  when  we  recollect  that 
from  the  1st  of  April,  1831,  the  stage  owners  had  voluntarily  hasteneii  ttje 
mail  through  in  about  60  hours,  at  the  same  speed  or  about  the  same  speed 
at  which  it  ran  by  the  contract  of  1827;  but  omitting  for  the  rapid  line  the 
stoppages  on  the  road  which  had  been  required  by  that  contract.  Thus  the 
experiment  had  been  fairly  tested.  It  was  known  that  the  mail  could  be 
carried  through  at  the  above  named  speed,  and  we  may  well  suppose  it  was 
intended  so  to  carry  it,  for  before  the  contract  of  1831  went  into  effect,  it  was 
so  changed  as  to  run  precisely  at  the  speed  and  in  the  manner  in  which  it 
was  run  from  the  1st  of  April,  1831,  prior  to  the  advertisement. 

Why  then  was  this  route  not  advertised  at  the  speed  and  in  the  manner 
in  v/hich  it  was  intended  it  should  be  run?  Was  a  different  advertisement  sent 
abroad  to  inform,  or  was  it  to  mislead  those  who  wished  to  be  competitors 
for  the  contract,  and  thus  to  enable  a  favored  individual  to  bid  it  off  as  adver- 
tised at  a  rate  so  low  that  he  would  avoid  all  competition,  and  afterwards  to 
place  it  in  his  hands  on  an  improved  bid,  at  a  rate  far  above  what  would  have 
been  practicable  if  the  intended  mode  of  transportation  had  been  pointed 
out,  and  actual  competition  invited?  It  will  be  recollected  that  the  bid  to 
carry  pursuant  to  the  advertisement  was  at  iiS7,000  a  year  daily,  in  four  horse 
post  coaches,  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  through  in'three  days  and  nine 
hours,  changing  at  all  the  way  offices.  The  improved  bid,  which  became 
in  effect  the  contract  from  the  beginning,  was  to  carry  the  mail  twice  a  day 
from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  and  once  a  day  from  Pittsburg  by  Wash- 
ington to  Wheeling,  at  ^27,000  a  year,  which  was  estimated  at  ^25,000  a 
year  to  Pittsburg.  The  plan  was  to  divide  the  mail;  carry  the  way  mail 
in  one  line  without  any  exactly  defined  speed  through  in  three  and  a  half 
days;  in  the  other  to  carry  the  mail  from  Philadelpiiia  to  Pittsburg,  chang- 
ing only  at  one  or  two  intermediate  towns,  and  to  stop  at  none  but  those 
at  which  changes  were  made,  and  thus  by  running  night  and  day  to  make 
the  distance  in  about  60  hours.  It  was  certainly  an  advantage  to  the  pub- 
lic that  the  mail  should  be  thus  expedited,  and  it  was  an  advantage  to  the 
contractor  that  he  should  be  permitted  to  divide  the  mail,  and  carry  the 
way  mail  at  a  speed  which  might  suit  his  convenience,  and  in  a  different 
eoach  from  that  which  carried  the  principal  mail.  That  it  was  so  is  proved 
by  the  fact,  that  he  had  chosen  of  his  own  accord  so  to  divide  it  before  he 
was  bound  to  do  so  by  contract  with  the  department.  It  is  evident,  too,  that 
by  thijf  division  of  mail  and  this  difference  of  speed,  it  enabled  him  to  ac- 
commodate passengers  in  each  line  or  coaches  according  to  their  wishes  for 
leisure  or  expedition.  The  sum  paid  for  transportation  according  to  the 
improved  bid,  is  therefore,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  much  too 
large,  and  that  it  does  very  much  "  exceed  the  exact  proportion  of  the 
original  amount  to  the  additional  dvties  required.''  Your  committee 
examined  two  witnesses  upon  this  subject,  from  whose  testimony  they  have 
been  able  to  arrive  pretty  nearly  at  the  proportion  which  the  cost  and  ex- 
pense of  the  respective  luies  bear  to  each  other.     This  forms  some  data, 


49  [  86  ] 

though  by  no  means  exact,  on  which  to  found  a  calculation  of  what  should 
have  been  {he  increased  allowance  to  the  contractor  for  his  second  daily- 
mail  in  his  rapid  line. 

John  W.  Weaver  was  a  member  of  "the  Western  Stage  Company,"  and, 
of  course,  inteiested  in  this  line.  He  appears  to  have  possessed  very  full 
information  on  the  subject,  so  far  &s  regarded  the  western  part  of  the  route; 
and  as  the  part  of  his  testimony  strictly  applicable  to  the  question  now  un- 
der consideration  is  very  concise  and  explicit,  your  committee  here  copy 
the  words  of  the  deposition. 

Question  5th.  "  VViiat  was  the  comparative  cost  of  original  stock  upon 
your  fast  and  slow  lines  between  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg?" 

Answer.  "The  diflerence  of  the  cost  of  stock  would  be,  according  to 
my  calculation,  as  10  to  7,  consisting  of  the  difference  in  the  quality  of 
the  stock.  This  answer  refers  only  to  that  part  of  the  route  from  Cham- 
bersburg  to  Pittsburg,  not  having  been  interested  in  the  other  or  eastern 
part  of  the  route." 

Question  Gth.  "  Is  there  any  difference  in  the  expenses  of  keeping  and 
running  the  line.-*" 

Answer     "None,  I  think." 

Question  7th.  "  What  is  the  difference  of  wear  and  tear  of  stock  on  the 
two  lines?" 

Answer.  "  I  should  think  thnit  the  wear  and  tear  of  the  "  Good  Intent" 
over  the  other  line  would  be  about  one  fourth  more;  that  is  to  say,  if  it 
would  cost  i^SOO  a  team  and  coach  in  the  Telegraph  Line  per  year,  it  would 
cost  i^lOOO  in  the  Good  Intent." 

And  John  H.  Foster,  a  person  who  has  been  long  in  the  employment  of 
the  stage  company  on  the  eastern  part  of  this  line,  in  speaking  of  the  com- 
parative cost  of  running  the  two  lines  on  that  end  of  the  route,  says,  (see 
Doc.  No.  79,) 

"The  fast  line  is  severer  on  horses  and  coaches  considerable;  I  would 
say  one  fourth  more,  perhaps  not  so  much;  the  original  cost  of  horses  and 
coaches  are  about  the  same." 

Thus  it  appears  that  on  the  western  and  mountainous  half  of  the  route 
the  cost  of  stock  on  the  rapid  line  bore  the  same  proportion  to  that  on  the 
slow  line  that  10  bears  to  7;  the  wear  and  tear  of  stock  as  10  to  8,  and  the 
current  expenses  of  both  were  equ.il.  On  the  eastern  half  of  the  route  the 
cost  of  stock  was  the  same  on  both  lines,  and  the  wear  and  tear  of  stock 
about  the  same  as  on  the  western  part  of  the  line.  If,  then,  we  take  as  the 
ground  of  our  comparison  that  element  in  which  there  is  ihe  greaiesi  ex- 
cess of  expense  on  the  fast  line  over  the  slow  one,  which  were  making  the 
difference  between  them  much  greater  than  the  evidence  does  in  fact  make 
it,  their  relative  proportions  will  stand  thus: 
Cost  and  expense  of  the  slow  line  per  annum,  as  fixed  by  the 

bid  at  the  lettings  in  October,  1831  $7  000 

Cost  and  expense  of  rapid  line  yearly,  fixed  by  the  proportion 

it  bears  to  the  slow  line,  it  being  in  the  ratio  of  10  to  7  10  000 

Which  would  give  to  the  two  daily  lines  with  the  increased 

speed,  yearly  ;gl7  000 

Though  the  elements  from  which  our  estimate  most  be  formed  of  the  rela- 
tive value  of  these  two  lines,  and  of  the  proportion  which  the  service  ua- 
7 


[  86  ]  50 

der  the  improved  bid  bears  to  that  under  the  bid  pursuant  to  the  advertise- 
ment, be  not  sufficiently  exact  to  fix  it  \\ith  accuracy,  yet  they  are  so  far 
certain  as  to  show  conclusively  that,  the  above  estimate  is  too  high,  and 
would  allow  the  contractor  a  greater  increase  of  compensation  than  the  Post- 
master General  could,  consislently  with  the  provisions  of  law,  have  allowed 
him.  But  we  have  seen  that  instead  of  Si 7,000  a  year  for  the  two  daily 
lines  on  this  route,  which  we  iiave  already  shown  would  have  been  an  ex- 
cessive allowance,  taking  the  bid  pursuant  to  the  advertisement  as  its  basis, 
the  contractor  was  allowed  upon  it  at  once  from  the  begitming  ^25,000  a 
year  to  Pittsburg;,  or  §27,000  a  year  to  Wheeling,  by  Washington.  In  the 
allowance  to  Pittsburg  there  is,  therefore,  a  clear  excess  of  more  than 
gSOOO  a  year,  which  is  supported  by  no  law,  and  sustained  by  no  knov/n 
■principle  of  justice. 

This  contract,  with  the  increased  allowance  of  SlS,OGO  a  year  attached  to 
if,  took  effect  on  the  1st  of  January,  1632.  And  within  that  year,  at  a  date 
not  precisely  ascertained,  but  about  the  iSth  of  July,  the  additional  sum  of 
ten  thouscnid  dollars  a  year  was  allowed  to  the  contractors  for  transport- 
ing all  the  ne.W':p('.pers  in  "  their  most  rapid  line." 

This  allowance  was  animadverted  upon  by  your  committee  in  their  report 
of  the  9th  of  June  last.  Since  that  time  the  transaction  has  been  referred 
to  in  the  address  of  the  Postmaster  Genera!  to  the  American  people.  It  is 
believed  that  every  apology  for  it  which  exists  has  been  brought  within 
the  notice  of  your  committee;  and  they  now  propose  to  reconsider  it  fully, 
givinf  due  weight  to  all  the  statements  v»'hich  have  been  published  concein- 
ing  it,  except  so  far  as  they  are  contradicted  by-testimony. 

In  the  report  of  the  Postmaster  General  of  the  3d  of  March,  1834,  the 
allowance  is  thus  stated: 

*^'Reeside  and  Slaymaker  are  the  contractors  for  carrying  the  mail  from 
Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  Pennsylvania,  three  hundred  and  two  miles, 
""wice  a  d-ty,  and  from  Pittsburg,  by  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  to  Wheel- 
ing, Virginia,  fifty  seven  miles,  daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  from  Ist 
of  January,  1832,  to  31st  of  December,  1835,  at  a  compensation  of  ^27,000 
per  annum. 

•^^In  consequence  of  the  increased  rapidity  of  this  mail,  the  newspapers 
which  were  formerly  sent  by  the  east  or  other  routes  were  now  sent  upon 
this;  and  the  general  cry  of  the  public  for  the  more  rapid  conveyance  of 
newspapers  required  them  to  be  sent  in  their  rapid  line,  instead  of  the 
sbwer  line,  as  was  contemplated  in  their  proposals,  which  so  loaded  it  as 
almost  to  exclude  passengers;  they  were  therefore  allowed,  from  the  Ist  of 
April,  1832,  for  transporting  all  the  papers  by  their  most  rapid  line,  at  the 
annual  rate  of  glO,000." 

And  the  Postmaster  General,  in  his  address  above  referred  to,  makes  the 
following  statement  of  the  transaction: 

'<  Messrs.  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  entered  into  contract  to  transport  the 
mail  between  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg,  daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches; 
to  run  two  lines  a  day;  one  to  go  through  in  a  few  hours  more  than  two 
days,  the  other  in  three  and  a  half  days.  The  object  of  the  two  lines  was, 
tha,t  the  weight  of  the  whole  mail  being  too  great  to  admit  of  its  transporta- 
tion with  the  rapidity  required  by  the  shortest  time,  the  principal  letter 
mail  for  Lancaster,  Harrisburg,  Chambersburg,  Bedford,  Pittsburg,  and  all 
pieces  west  of  Pittsburg,  and  the  same  returning,  niight  be  carried  through; 


51  ^  I    SS2 

with  the  greatest  possible  rapidity,  that  mail  beiiig  not  overloaded,  nor  re- 
quired to  stop  at  all  the  way  olhces  to  exeijanij;e  mails;  but  thit  the   more 
tardy  line  mi^ht  carry  the  iieavy  newspaoer  mads,   and  the  leiler  mails  for 
the  mternieciiate  offices,  commoniy  called  the  way  mail.      In  this  way  they 
began  their  operations  on  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  the  day  when  their  con- 
tract  commenced.     It  was  but  a  short  time  before  heavy  complaints  were 
made  by  editors  and  otiiers,  ou  account  of  tlie  delay  of  newspapers.     Wlieti 
information  was  received  b}''  letter,  or  by  newspapers  put  up  in  letters,  as  is 
customary  with  those  who  ha\e  the  privilege  of  Iranking,   eailier  than   by 
the  r'^gular  newspaper  mail,   the   coniractors  were  accused  of  detaining  tli3 
mail  on  the  road,  and  the  department  was  censured  for  sufiering  tliem  to  do 
so.     Messrs.  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  were  amongst  the  best  of  coniraciors, 
and  no  jjersons  could  be  more  sensitive  than  they,    when   any  comjjlaints 
Avere  made  touching  their  characters  as  mail  contractors.     To  allay  these 
complaints,  they,  agreeably  to  the   wishes  of  the    department,   u;iJertuok, 
from  the  1st  of  April,  l&3i,  to  carry  all  ihe  newspapers  for  Piitsburg,  and 
places  bey(»nd  that  point,  in  their   more   raj>!d   line.      After  three   months' 
trial,  ihey  came  to  sVashingtoa,  and  alleged  that  the  loss  which  they  had 
sustained  by  carrying  the  great  newspaper  mail   in  their  more   rapid   line 
was  so  great  it  would  prove  iuinous  to  continue  it,   unless  the}'  should  re- 
ceive something  approximating  to   a  renin neration  for  the  same.     They 
urged  their  right  to  relinquish  their  contract,  if  they  were  required  to  con- 
tinue tiie  service,  as   it  was  involving  an  enormous  expense  to  render  it 
practicable,  find  demanding  of  them  a  service  which  their  contract  did   not 
coniemj>late  nor  require.      This  conversation  was  verbal;   but  I  told   thetu 
to  reduce  their  statement  to  writing,  and  I  would  take  it  into  consideration. 
Upon  this  they  presented  me  the  following  written  statement:" 

He  sets  forth  a  letter  written  to  him  by  James  Reeside  and  Samuel  R. 
Slaymaker,  dated  at  Washington,  July  12,  1832,  which  contains  this  clause: 
"  To  satisfy  tlie  public  and  sustain  the  credit  of  the  department  and  our- 
selves, we  made  the  experiment  of  trying  to  carry  the  newspapers  with  our 
most  rapid  line.  We  have  partly  succeeded,  but  with  very  great  loss. 
For  three  days  in  the  week,  we  are  compelled  to  exclude  all  passengers,  to 
the  loss  of  not  less  than  one  hU'idred  dollars  a  day." 

The  Postmaster  General  then  adds,  "  On  the  presentation  of  the  above, 
I  made  the  allowance.  It  was  for  a  service  which  the  original  contract  did 
not  require  them  to  perforin,  and  a  service  for  which  the  public  voice  was 
clamorous." 

Your  Committee  will  now  proceed  to  examine  how  far  the  above  state- 
ments coincide  with  the  evidence,  and  first,  that  of  the  Po^^tmaster  General, 
in  which,  speaking  of  this  allowance  of  jS  10,000  a  year,  he  says,    '^  it  was 
for  a  service  lohich  their  original  contract  did  not  require   the/a  to  per- 
Jhrm.^^     Is  this  the  fact.' 

The  contract,  as  executed  and  sealed  by  the  parties,  sheds  no  light  what- 
ever on  the  subject.  It  ct^ptains  no  clause  showing  even  the  speed  at  which 
the  mail  is  to  be  carried,  nor  what  is  to  be  carried  by  it.  There  is  no 
schedule  attached  to  it  in  the  contract  book;  though  one  was  furnished  to 
your  committee  on  their  call,  which  corresponds  very  nearly  wiih  the  bid 
of  the  contractors.  It  is  to  this  schedule  and  the  bid^  therefore,  that  we 
must,  in  the  first  place,  refer  for  an  explanation  of  the  understanding  of  the 
parties  at  the  time  of  entering  into  this  oontract. 


[  S6   ]  5S 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  bid  of  Reeside  and  others,  that  they  propose  to 
carry  the  mail  pursuant  to  the  advertisement;  that  is,  through  from  Phila- 
delphia to  Pittsburgh  in  three  days  nine  and  a  half  hours,  in  four  horse  post 
coaches,  at  the  annual  compensation  of  S7,.000.     See  Doc.  80. 

Or  to  run  two  daily  lines,  carrying  the  mail  twice  daily  from  Philadel- 
phia to  Pittsburgh.  The  first  mail,  from  the  1st  of  April  to  the  1st  of  Decem- 
ber, through  in  two  days  and  five  hours,  and  the  residue  of  the  year  in  three 
days;  and  through  to  Wheeling,  by  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  from  Phila- 
delphia, in  all  except  the  winter  quarter,  in  three  days,  and  in  four  days 
during  the  winter.  To  rati  the  second  line  of  stages  from  Philadelphia  to 
Pittsburgh  through  in  three  days  and  five  hours,  changing  the  mail  at  all  the 
way  officeSj  and  of  course  carrying  ihe  wcnj  mail,  for  ^27,000  a  year. 

There  is  nothing  in  either  the  proposals  or  in  the  contract  which  counte- 
rances  the  ideathot  the  contractors  had  a  right  to  direct  or  rpgulat<i  the  kind 
of  mail  matfer,  wheiher  letters  or  papers,  that  should  be  carried  in  their  most 
rapid  line.  And  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Postmaster  General  to  send  by  that 
line  ail  the  mail  matter  which  the  public  interest  required  to  be  transported 
vapidly.  There  does  not  seem  from  the  first  to  have  existed  a  doubt 
that  all  the  mail  matter  which  was  to  be  sent  throngh  was  to  go  in  the  rapid 
iine.  William  Tliompson,  (see  Doc.  No,  78,)  the  agent  of  the  company 
stationed  at  Chamberburg,  and  who  has  been  seven  or  eight  years  in  their 
employment,  says  he  has  never  known  any  part  of  the  mail  through  car- 
ried in  any  other  than  the  rapid  line,  and  such  seems  to  have  been  the  case, 
unless  indeed  bv  some  accident,  or  under  special  circumstances,  a  mail  bag 
which  belorged' to  the  rapid  line  chanced  to  be  displaced. 

John  W.  Weaver,  a  witness  before  referred  to  as  a  partner  of  the  compa- 
ny, in  answer  to  the  following  interrogatory:  See  Doc.  No.  64. 

Question  S.  "  Did  you  carry  the  whole  mail  through  in  your  quick  line 
from  1st  of  January,  1832,  or  did  you  carry  a  part  of  it  in  the  slow  line?" 

Answer.  *'I  think  we  carried  all  the  mails  in  the  fast  line  except  the  way 
mails.  At  Bedford,  I  think,  during  that  year  we  put  some  of  the  bags  for 
places  south  of  Pittsburgh  in  the  line  by  Washington  and  Wheeling." 

This  witness  corro!>orates  the  testimony  of  Thompson,  and  establishes  to  a 
reasonable  certainty  the  fact,  thct  the  newspapers  were  carried  during  the 
first  quarter  of  1833  in  the  rapid  line;  and  all  that  is  said  by  the  parties  and 
the  Post nijuter  General  about.  ; he  original  understanding,  that  the  newspa- 
pers wtre  to,  be  carried  in  the  slow  line,  and  of  i\\Q  public  clamor  in  conse- 
quence 01  iis  being  l-o  carried;  is  irconsistent  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  and 
must  have  its  origin  in  error.  There  is  therefore  no  ground  whatever  for 
saying  that  the  allowance  of  $10,000  a  year  was  for  ** service  which  the 
©rigintil  contract  did  not  require  these  contractors  to  perform,"  unless  the 
alleged  ecnverfations  f,f  the  contractors  with  the  Postmaster  General  and 
his  suocrintendentof  mail  contracts  changed  or  afl'ected  their  liability. 

No  a:  f^ument  by  this  committee  is  necessary  to  satisfy  the  Senate  that  it 
were  wholly  inadmissible  topersnit  conversations,  actual  or  alleged,  to  con- 
trol ihe  solemn  ccntracts  entered  into  by  the  Postmaster  General,  and  sealed' 
by  the  parties  pursuant  to  law  and  usage.  There  can  be  no  question  of  per- 
sonal faith,  )\or  should  thei'e  be.  of  personal  favor  upon  the  subject.  The 
£W  allows  this  officer  (o  enter  into  contracts;  and  law  and  usage  prescribe 
^e  manner  in  which  those  contracts  shall  be  entered  into  and  executed. 


53  C  86   ] 

And  neither  the  Postmaster  General  or  his  assistant  has  any  authority  to 
yield  by  conversaiion,  what  is  the  right  of  the  public  by  contract.  But 
when  were  these  conversations  held,  in  which  Messrs.  Reeside  and  Slay- 
maker  say  that  it  was  understood  that  the  newspaper  mail  was  to  be  carried 
in  the  slow  line?  Were  they  before  or  were  they  after  the  opening  of  the 
bids?  If  before,  it  establishes  a  charge  which  has  ofteii  been  urged  against 
the  department,  namely,  that  of  advertising  differetitly  from  the  manner 
in  which  it  was  intended  the  mail  should  be  carried — agreeiug  with  some 
favorite  contractor  that  he  should  put  in  an  improved  Ind,  which  it  was 
understood  should  be  accepted,  and  the  improvments  ordered  before  the 
service  commenced;  thus  putting  it  in  his  power  to  get  the  contract  on  his 
own  terms,  and  without  competition. 

The  letter  of  Reeside  and  Slayrnaker  on  which  this  extra  sum  of  SlO,000 
a  year  was  allowed,  states  that  the  n.aii  u-as  &o  iieavy  betvvee;i  Philadelphia 
and  Pitt.sburg  as  to"  exchide  passengers  on  the  rapid  line  for  three  days  of 
the  week.  The  paper  purports  to  liave  been  signed  on  the  12th  da}?^  of 
July,  A.  D.  1S32,  and  the  Postmaster  General  says  it  was  presented  to  him, 
and  the  aHowance  thereupon  made.     See  Doc.  No.  81. 

Your  committee,  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  the  acturil  stale  of  things  at 
the  time  of  making  this  very  large  and  extraordinary  allowance,  culled 
several  witnesses  before  them,  all  of  whom  speak  of  very  hoavy  mails,  S9 
h«avy  as  to  exclude  passengers  from  the  rapid  line  one  or  two  days  \\\  the 
week  during  some  part  of  the  year  1832,  though  they  do  not  all  agree  as  to 
the  lime  of  the  year  when  passengers  were  so  excluded.  Fortunately,  a 
record  was  kept  by  the  agent  for  the  company  at  Chambersburgh  on  this 
route,  showing  the  number  of  passengers  that  actually  passed  that  place  each" 
day  ill  ibis  rapid  line;  and  from  tlds  book,  and  the  testirnon}'^  of  William 
Thompson,  t!ie  agent  in  whose  possession  it  is,  your  committee  were  able  to 
get  at  so  much  of  certainty  as  to  avoid  the  danger  of  being  misled  by  any 
very  eross  exaggeration.     See  D<)c.  No.  7S. 

There  certainly  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  contractors  were  able  to 
carry  on  this  line,  on  each  and  every  day,  as  many  passengers  us  they  did 
in  fact  carry;  but  it  is  by  no  means  certain,  on  the  otiier  liand,  tliat  they 
were  unable  to  carry  any  more-,  for  from  the  tcslimon}'  of  John  ^V^  Wea- 
ver, one  of  the  partners,  we  find  that  th  'y  had  not  always  a  full  freight"  of 
passengers.      On  that  subject  hesaj's, 

'•^  Our  travel  fiom  the  easi  gcn'^rolly  commenced  about  the  1st  of  Febru- 
ary, and  we  ran  full  until  ab'^'it  the  1st  of  May,  and  often  had  to  employ 
extras;  then  the  travelling  giaduaily  fell  offi*  until  about  the  1st  of  October, 
durinij;  which  time  one  line  and  a  half  would  carry  the  pa.Saengers.  PVom 
1st  October  to  ist  JJectmber  we  were  full  again;  then  w*^  ran  very  light 
till  February;  a  line  and  a  half  would  be  more  than  su^Ticient  to  carry  all 
the  passengers  during  that  season  of  the  }'car. " 

William  Tliompson,  the  agent  of  the  company,  brouefM  hij  books  before 
the  committee,  and  in  answer  to  the^inquiry,  "  Are  you  able  from  your  books 
to  designate  at  what  times  it  was  you  were  not  able  to  carry  passengers?" 
says, 

*<  In  the  year  1832  I  find  eighteen  blank  trips,  m.ost  of  them  f-om  1st 
October  to  3 1  si  December.  In  the  same  yt'ar  ther*;  were  fifty-eight  trips  of 
not  more  than  one  or  two  passenger^.."  Tliis  he  afterwards  corrects,  and 
says  there  were  twenty  blank  trips  instea'i  of  eighteen. 


I    86  ]  54 

It  appears  by  the  examination  of  this  witness  and  his  books,  that  seven 
of  the  fweH/i/  blank  irips  which  he  speaks  of,   took  phice  in  the  month  of  i 

January,  and   six  in  the  month  of  December;  and  those,    it  will    be    recol-  I 

lectcd,  ,'tre  tht-  months  in  which  J.  VV.  Weaver  says  there  were  but  few  pas- 
sengers, leaving  but  sevc?i  blank  trips  for  the  other  ten  jriofi/hs  of  tiiis  year; 
that  is,  a  stage  without  passengers  tme  trip  m  forty  -three.  The  allegation 
of  Reesidf  and  Slaymakcr,  in  their  letter  to  the  Postmaster  General  of  the 
i2ih  July,  1832,  in  these  words,  "  For  three  days  in  the  week  we  arecom- 
pelled  to  exclude  all  passevgers,^'  is  not  at  all  supported  by  their  own 
books,  or  the  testimony  of  their  own  partners  and  aj^onts. 

On  a  re-exnminalion  of  Willi:im  Thompson,  and  by  exact  reference  to  his 
books,  we  find  that  there  was  one  blank  trip  in  the  month  of  April  west- 
>vard,  and  none  eastward.  In  the  same  month  there  were  six  trips  with 
not  more  than  two  pa-^sunj^ers  westward,  and  three  with  no  more  than  that 
number  eastward.  In  the  month  of  May  there  were  two  blank  trips  west- 
ward, and  one 'eastward:  in  the  same  month  ten  trijis  in  which  there  were 
not  more  than  two  passengers  westward,  and  five  with  not  more  than  two 
eastward.  In  the  month  of  June  there  were  thn  e  blank  trips  westward, 
and  three  eastward.  In  llie  satne  month  there  were  ten  trips  of  not  more 
than  two  passengers  westward,  and  nine  of  not  more  than  two  passengers 
eastward.  The  whole  number  of  passengers  westward,  in  those  three  months, 
was  33755  and  the  whole  number  eastward  was  397i-,  making  a  difference  of 
sixty  passengers  in  three  months,  equal  to  two  passengers  in  three  da3^s. 

It  will  he  recollected  that  no  comjilaint  whatever  is  made  of  heavy  mails 
from  west  to  east.  In  that  direction  they  were  never  so  heavy  as  to  exclude 
passengers;  so  that  when  the  stages  ran  emjdy  or  light  it  was  for  want  of 
passengers,  not  for  want  of  room  in  the  coach  for  their  accommodation. 

If  vve  lake  the  number  of  passengers  in  this  liVie  from  west  to  east  as  the 
criterion  forjudging  what  it  vv»,uld  hi;ive  been  from  east  to  \vest,  if  none  had 
been  exclut'ed  by  the  heavy  rnuls,  it  amounts  to  a  loss  by  that  reason  of  sixty 
passengers  in  these  three  months.  The  like  loss  may  have  occurred  during 
the  three  months  of  Sepiembnr,  October,  and  November,  which  are  about' 
equal  to  those  of  April.  Alay,  and  June  for  passengers.  During  the  months 
in  which  fhe)e  are  but  few  passengers,  as  July,  August,  and  September,  De- 
{^ember  and  Januarv,  there  would  be  I'ttle  or  no  loss,  as  there  were  not  during 
those  months,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Weaver,  more  than  passengers 
pnongh  on  an  average  for  one  line  and  a  half  of  coaches;  and  in  the  month  of 
Janu.u-v,  1833,  the  witnesses  concur  in  saying  liiat  the  mail  fell  off  again 
1.0  about  what  it  was  in  1831.  • 

The  loss..,  then,  by  the  heavy  mails  during  the  time  they  continued,  would 
be  about  one  liundred  and  twenty  passengers,  if  in  reality  they  did  not, 
when  miable  to  lake  passage  in  the  quick  line,  go  in  the  slower  line,  or  some 
of  the  extras.  But  suppose  the  loss  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  passengers, 
at  nineteen  ddlars  each,  which  is  understood  to  be  the  fare  from  city  to  city, 
it  would  be  ^52,280;  the  sum  which,  upon  a  fair  estimate,  is  all  that  the  de- 
partment ought  to  have  paid,  if,  indeed,  after  paying  .S25, 000  a  year  for  c«r- 
ryirig  the  ni  it  between  the  t-wo  cities,  it  had  l)een  really  bound  to  pay  the 
contractors  in  atldition  thereto  for  whatever  cost  an(l  trouble  tliey  may 
be  put  to  in  carrying  it.  The  amount  so  given  to  Reeside  and  Slaymaker, 
for  which  they  rendered  no  service,  and  of  which  they  gave  their  partners 
no  share,  was  Sl7;500. 


55  [SI 

This  detail,  minute  and  even  tedious  as  it  may  seem,  was,  nevertheless,  ne- 
cessary to  avoid  the  dang;er  of  error  arising  from  the  vague  ianguage  of  some 
of  the  witnesses,  and  their  want  of  a  precise  and  distinct  knowledge  or  reccJ 
lection   of  the  facts.     We  believe  there  can  be  no  error  in  the  evidence  ol 
Thompson,  so  far  as  it  purports  to  be  drawn  from  the  books  of  the  compai;;,- 
and  that  thus  far  it  may  be  implicitly  relied  on. 

Your  committee  would  recall  the  attention  of  the  Senate  for  a  moment  to 
the  statement  of  the  Po:5tmaster  General  in  his  circular,  where  he  professes 
to  give  the  reasons  for  this  extra  allowance.  It  was  not  given  for  any  hard- 
ships or  difficulties  encountered  before  the  Isi  of  April,  1832;  for  he  says 
that  before  that  date  the  newspapers  were  not  carried  in  the  rapid  line,  but  it 
was  for  those  which  occurred  after  thp  1st  of  April  and  prior  to  the  1st  of 
July;  or,  in  his  own  words,  <<after  three  months'  trial."  Therefore,  th; 
state  of  things  between  the  1st  of  April  and  the  1st  of  July,  1832,  wastha. 
on  which  this  allowance  was  granted;  ai  d  it  is  so  narrowed  down  in  point  of 
time  that  your  committee  have  been  able  to  get  at  the  truth  with  certainty, 
and  it  results  in  this:  That  within  that  period  there  were  six  trips  in  which 
there  were  no  passengers  westward,  and  twelve  trips  with  but  one;  four 
trips  in  which  there  were  no  passengers  eastward,  and  nine  trips  in  whicii 
there  was  but  one.  Most  of  the  blanks  aiKl  light  triiis  both  ways  in  thefte 
three  months  occur  in  the  latter  part  of  May  and  in  the*;iont]i  of  June,  during 
v/bich  time  J.  W.  Weaver  testifies  that  there  were  but  few  passengers. 

The  letter  of  Reesi^'e  and  Slaymaker,  set  out  at  lengih  by  the  Postmaster 
General  and  copied  above,  complains  that  the  bargain  to  carry  the  mail  a?. 
they  were  then  required  to  c.irry  it  was  a  hard  one;  that  the  business  wouiu 
prove  ruinous  to  them,  and  avers  that  an  a'lditional  compensation  oi  fiftt&n, 
thousand  a  year  was  the  least,  sum  that  would  save  them  from  actual  loss; 
but  they  propose  to  take  ten  thousand  a  year  as  part  indemnity,  and  suf- 
fer a  loss  oifiiit  thousand  a  year  themselves,  and  do  tjie  service  for  the  ho^ 
nor  and  credit  of  the  department.  The  Postmaster  General  made  the  al- 
lowance of  ten  thousand  a  year  on  this  letter,  v,-ithout  any  other  evidence  to 
sustain  it,  and  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  did  not  disclose  to  their  partners  the 
fact  that  such  allowance  was  made. 

Jesse  Tomiinson,  one  of  their  partners  who  signed  the  contract,  testified 
before  the  committee,  en  the  29th  day  of  May,  1834,  that  he  was  informed 
in  the  spring  of  1832,  by  Reeside  and  Slaymaker,  that  there  was  to  be  such 
allowance;  and  he  further  stated  that  Mr.  Slaymaker  told  him  ''  thai  he  was 
to  let  Mr.  Brown  have,  or  that  he  was  to  give  Mr.  Brown  iSl,000  of  it.'' 
And  he  adds,  "  in  February  or  March,  1833,  I  asked  Mr.  Slaymaker 
aboutMt,  and  he  told  me  he  understood  it  was  not  allowed;"* and  thus  it 
passed  off  without  the  knowledge  of  any  of  the  partners  until  the  examina- 
tion before  your  committee  m.ade  known  the  transaction.  Since  the  publi- 
cation of  that  testimony,  the  other  members  of  the  company  claimed  from 
Reeside  and  Slaymaker  their  proportion  oi  this  extra,  Wi.ich  for  the  time 
it  was  allowed  amounted  to  $17,500.  They  refused  to  pay  over  any  parii; 
of  it,  and  at  last,  by  common  consent,  the  matter  was  referred  to  two  arbi- 
trators, members  of  the  company  at  the  time  of  the  submission,  but  not  at  the 
time  the  claim  accrued,  who  were  finally  to  adjudge  and  determine  on  the 
matter.  Abraham  Harbaugh,  (see  Doc.  63,)  a  member  of  the  company  exam- 
ined on  that  subject  by  your  committee  on  the  17th  of  November  last,  says"hr 
./Reeside)  has  never  settled  with  our  company,  so  far  as  1  know,  nor  ilid  h 


[  86  ]  56 

say  any  thing  except  at  nur  settlement,  I  think  in  August  last  at  the  Crossings, 
when  the  company  mti  and  called  on  him  about  those  extra  allowances,  as 
they  understood  they  had  been  made,  and  wished  to  know  from  him  how 
he  would  account  for  them;  he  then  stated  we  had  all  lecelved  our  propor- 
tion; that  this  money  had  been  expended  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  con- 
cern. We  then  proposed  to  appoint  a  committee,  as  he  did  not  teem  disposed 
to  tell  how  it  had  been  expended.  It  was  agreed  on  that  the  committee 
should  hear  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  by  themselves,  and  they  were  to  report 
to  the  company  whether  we  had  received  our  proportion.  The  committee 
were  not  to  state  the  particulars  as  to  how  this  money  had  been  expended, 
but  merely  their  opinion  whether  we  had  received  our  proportion  or  not. 
The  committee  consisted  of  John  McKee  and  Dunning  R.  McNair,  of  Pitts- 
burg; they  are  now  part  of  the  company,  but  were  not  when  the  allowances 
were  made.  They  reported  favorably  to  Reeside  and  Slay.maker.  They 
were  not  at  liberty  to  state  what  had  passed  between  them  and  Reeside  and 
Slaymaker.  The  report  of  the  committee  was  in  wiiting,  and  was  entered 
on  our  minutes;  Col.  McNair  I  think  has  them." 

Mr.  Lewis,  (see  Doc.  No.  62,)  also  a  member  of  the  company,  says,  "I 
never  knew  any  thing  of  the  allowance  until  I  saw  it  in  Jesse  Tomlinson's 
deposition,  taken  before  the  committee  of  the  Senate  last  spring,  and  also  in 
Mr.  Reeside's  deposition,  taken  before  the  same  committee."  And  John 
Graham,  (see  Doc.  No.  8^,)  another  member  of  the  company,  testifies  to  the 
same  fact.  He  says  he  was  a  partner  on  this  line,  and  as  such  entitled  to  his 
dividend  of  all  that  was  paid  for  services  rendered  on  it;  and  that  he  never 
heard  of  such  extra  allowance  until  it  was  disclosed  by  the  committee  of  the 
Senate. 

Reeside,  in  his  testimony  before  the  committee  on  the  17th  day  of  May 
last,  says  that  he  paid  no  part  of  this  extra  allowance  over  to  the  cohnpany, 
but  kept  his  part  of  it  to  answer  debts  due  by  them.  And  again,  on  the  21st, 
he  says,  that  though  be  did  not  pay  any  part  of  it  over  to  the  comj)any,  he 
paid  it  out  to  their  use.  John  Graham,  in  answer  to  ihe  following  interro- 
gatory: 

"Did  Reeside  or  Slaymaker  ever  give  you  any  intimation  as  to  the  use 
which  had  been  made  of  that  money?"  says, 

"They  did.  They^said  they  were  at  great  expense  going  to  Washington 
and  travelling  about;  had  the  whole  charge  of  the  concern;  and  if  any  diffi- 
culty occurred  ihey  had  to  attend  to  it.  And  there  was  some  route  between 
Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  on  which  they  had  been  charged  with  extra  al- 
lowance, but  which  they  never  had  received,  and  some  other  charges  of  extra 
allow^ance  which  they  had  not  received.  They  did  not  state  what  bed  been 
done  with  those  extra  allowances,  but  that  the  10,000  dollars  was  in  part  to 
cover  those  allowances  which  they  had  not  received,  and  which  had  been 
charged  to  them,  and  for  which  they  had  done  services  but  had  not  received 
the  pay."  All  the  partners  concur  in  the  testimony  that  neither  Reeside 
nor  Slaymaker  set  up  any  claim  to  old  debts  or  old  accounts,  all  those  matters 
having  been  already  settled  with  them,  so  far  as  they  were  considered  just,  by 
the  company. 

Dunning  R.  McNair,  (see  Doc.  No.  83,)  one  of  the  comm?7/ec  appointed  by 
the  company  to  settle  the  extra  allowance,  says,  that  in  stating  their  case 
before  himself  and  Mr.  McKee,  who  were  to  hear  it  confidentially,  and  de- 


57  [  86  ] 

cide,  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  spoke  of  the  old  accounts;  but  that  they  showed 
them  no  account  and  named  no  items.  That  no  such  account  was  referred 
to  them  by  the  company,  and  that  they  took  no  notice  of  them  in  tlieir  re- 
port; still  it  would  seem  from  his  testimonj^,  that  they  were  a  part  of  the 
moving  cause  which  induced  him  to  report  in  favor  of  Reeside  and  Siay  maker. 

John  McKee,  after  mentioning  the  appointment  of  himself  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Nair  as  arbitrators  to  settle  the  matter,  and  that  the  communications  which 
they  received  were  to  be  confidential,  says:    See  Doc.  No.  S4. 

"Reeside  and  Slaymaker  said  to  us  that  they  had  drawn  the  $10,000  a 
year,  for,  I  think,  a  year  and  seven  months,  and  had  divided  it  equally  be- 
tween them.  That,  as  was  known  to  us,  they  owned  about  three  quarters 
of  the  whole  stock;  that  three  quarters  of  that  money  they  claimed  as  their 
own;  as  to  the  residue  ihey  cxjilained  to  us  that  they  had  been  at  a  great 
deal  of  trouble  and  a  great  deal  of  expense  in  procuring  the  present  con- 
tract. They  had  increased  the  speed  24  hours,  and  put  on  a  t^econd  daily 
mail;  there  was  a  number  of  expenses  which  they  had  never  brought  before 
the  compau)-;  we  examined  their  books  and  found  it  to  be  so.  They  stated 
that  they  had  been  at  trouble  and  expense  to  get  petitions  along  the  line,  to 
show  the  expediency  of  the  additional  speed  and  second  line.  That  they 
had  dravvn  tlie  mail  pay  quarterly,  and  divided  it  out  to  the  partners;  in  do- 
ing IJiis  they  had  incurred  expenses  in  going  to  Washington,  for  which  they 
had  made  no  cliarge;  that  they  were  at  considerable  expense  in  Washington; 
that  they  hgid  to  live  free  and  be  generous.''  He  states,  however,  that 
Mr.  Slaymaker  expressly  denied  having  given  or  advanced  any  money  to 
the  officers  in  the  General  Post  Office,  or  having  been  engaged  in  any  trans- 
action of  that  kind,  except  that  matter  with  Mr.  Brown,  as  detailed  in  his 
evidence  before  the  committee  of  the  Senate,  which  had  been  published. 
He  says  he  viev.ed  this  thing  as  a  business  transaction,  and  that  if  they 
(Reeside  and  Slaymaker)  had  charged  four  or  five  thousand  dollars  to  the 
company  for  doing  their  business,  and  to  cover  their  personal  expenses,  it 
would  not  Irave  been  too  much.  The  whole  amount  received  by  them  was 
Sl6,600;  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  were  owners  of  three-fourths  of  this  line, 
and  of  course  entitled  to  three-fourths  of  the  money,  leaving  about  $'5000 
to  come  to  the  other  partners.  This  sum  I  considered  them  as  pa}ing  Ree- 
eide  and  Slaymaker  for  doing  their  business.  The  compensation  for  one 
daily  line  had  been  S7,000;  two  daily  lines  were  now  run  and  §25,000  were 
paid.  The  speed  of  one  remained  the  same.  The  other  had  been  expedi- 
ted to  run  in  two  days  and  a  half  I  conceived  that  the  ivcstern  onmers 
by  losing  this  sum,  were  still  very  inuch  henefited  by  the  increased  al- 
lowance." 

One  of  the  most  extraordinary  features  of  this  very  extraordinary  transac- 
tion is  the  air  of  mystery  which  is  thrown  around  it.  Why,  if  the  expen- 
ditures which  had  been  made  were  such  as  would  bear  avowal  and  might 
see  the  light,  why  require  that  the  explanation  sliould  be  made  in  secret,  and 
apart  from  the  individuals  interested?  Could  those  men  have  hesitated  to 
disclose  to  their  partners  the  fact  that  they  had  charges,  and  fair  ones, 
against  the  company  which  had  never  been  settled?  or  that  they  had  ex- 
pended money  in  getting  up  and  circulating  petitions,  showing  the  necessity 
of  increased  sj)ced,  and  a  second  daily  line?  or  that  they  had  received  and 
8 


I  8^  ]  58 

disbursed  the  whole  money  received  for  the  company,  and  that  Ihey  were 
put  to  expense  and  trouble  in  doing  so?  All  these  things  might  surely  hare 
been  told  in  the  presence  of  the  other  partners  who  were  jointly  interested 
m  the  money  and  the  expenditures;  but  it  might,  neverthelesp,  have  been 
questionable  whether  Ihe  otlier  partners  would  have  been  satis*fied  to  allow 
tJ^em  ^17.500  for  these  services  and  expenses,  or  whether  they  would  have 
rested  satisfied  with  the  general  allegation,  that  they  "  had  to  live  frit  and 
he  generous,'^ 

The  testimony  of  Jesse  Tomlinson,  taken  before  your  committee  last 
spring,  throws  some  light  on  this  subject.  He  says  "  Slayrnaker  told  me 
that  fie  WIS  to  let  Mr.  Bruwn  ftaveor  to  give  lOr.  Brown  5^1,000  of  it.'' 
And  John  Graham,  another  partner,  as  already  siated,  testified  that  Rt-eside 
and  Slaymnker  told  him  '■'■  thdt  there  was  some  ronte  heliueeii  Bollimore 
and Philalilphiu  on  which  ifiey  had  been  charged  with  extra  nllo^vance, 
but  w/iich  they  never  had  received,  and  some  other  charges  tf  extra  al- 
lotoance  wfiich  they  liad  ')vd  received  They  did  not  state  what  had 
been  done  with  those  extra  alljwaytces,  but  tliat  the  S  10,000  \oas  in  pari 
to  cover  tho^e  allowances  which  they  had  not  received,  and  which  had 
been  charged  to  them,  and  for  which  they  had  done  services,  but  had  not 
received  the  pay." 

Your  committee  having  received  z  detail  of  these  circumstances,  called 
before  them  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker,  who  refused  to  testify.  (See  Doc.  87.) 
A  few  week  safter,  whenyour  committee  was  engaged  in  another  important  in- 
vestigation, a  note  was  received  from  him.  addressed  to  the  chairman,  in  which 
he  stated  tliat  he  was  in  attendnnce,  and  ready  to  be  examined.  Your  com- 
mittee could  not  at  tha*^  time  conveniently  examine  iiim;  and  as  he  had 
voluntarily  returned  and  submitted  himself  to  thfir  authority,  they  did  not 
deem  it  incumbent  on  them  to  report  his  former  contumacy  specially  to  the 
Senate. 

The  concluding  part  of  the  testimony  of  Mr.  McKee  hos  strong  relation 
to  the  reason  and  propriety  of  this  extra  allowance.  This  inrlividual  is  a 
»ember  of  the  company,  and  seems  to  have  a  very  exact  knowledge  of  the 
yalue  of  the  improvement  ob'.ained  b}'  Reeside  and  Sla3'^maker  in  this  con- 
tract, nam«ily,  the  increase  of  con)pensation  from  ;!57,0(jO  to  S~5,000.  "/ 
conceived,''  says  he,  ^'  that  the  western  owners,  by  losing  this  snni^  (the 
extra  of  '^lOjOOO  a  year,)  were  still  very  much  benefited  oy  the  increased 
allowance."  If  that  were  the  case,  on  what  ground  in  justice  and  reason 
could  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  entitle  themselves  to  it  from  the  department? 
if  they  incurred  expense  which  rendered  it  just  that  they  should  have  it, 
the  same  wore  borne  in  common  with  them  by  their  partners;  and  if  they 
rendered  service  on  this  route  to  the  department  or  the  public,  their  part- 
ners contributed  their  due  share  in  that  service.  But  especially)  if  this 
enormous  sum  were  paid  for  services  rendered,  why  was  it  concealed  for 
years  by  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  from  their  partners?  and  when  at  last 
exposed  to  the  world,  why  did  they  make  a  secret  of  the  facts  which  they 
claimed  should  justify  them  in  retaining  the  money? 

On  the  whole,  3'our  committee  are  satisfied,  from  the  evidence  before 
them,  that  none  of  the  reasons  urged  for  granting  this  extra  allowance  are 
sustained.  It  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  original  understanding 
that  the  newspapers  should  be  carried  through  from  Philadelphia  to  Pitts- 
burgh in  the  slow  line,  nor  does  it  apjiear  that  the  contractors  be<:an  so  to 


59  [  86  ] 

carry  them  at  the  commencement  of  their  contract  on  the  1st  of  January, 
1832,  as  alleged  by  the  Posf master  General  in  his  address.  Oa  the  con- 
trary, the  proof  is  satisfactory  that  the  mail  was  carried  from  the  1st  of 
January  to  the  1st  oi  April,  as  it  was  carried  after  the  last  named  date, 
without  alteration  or  change;  and  if  any  complaints  arose  in  consequence  of 
delay  in  the  transmission  of  newspapers  on  this  line,  it  was  because  of  an 
accidenlal  or  occasional  neglect  of  duty  in  the  contractors,  and  not  because 
of  any  right  or  pretence  of  right  claimed  by  them  to  place  that  part  of  the 
mail  in  their  tardy  line. 

The  excess  of  S^jOOO  a.year  allowed  on  the  impruvzd  bid  above  the  pro. 
portion  which  the  services  rendered  under  it  bore  to  the  services  required 
by  the  advertisement,  together  with  this  extra  allowance  of  $10,000  a  year, 
which  appears  to  have  been  made  for  no  service  whatever,  make  in  the 
aggregate  eighteen  thousand  dollars  a  year  improperly  paid  by  the  depart- 
ment to  the  contractors  on  this  line. 

There  is  one  imjiortant  particular  in  which  the  public  has  been  deceived 
as  to  the  services  rendered  by  the  contrnctors  on  this  route.  In  the  letter 
of  the  Postmaster  General  appended  to  the  former  rep.)rt  of  your  committee, 
which  professes  to  give  the  number  of  miles  which  the  mail  is  transported 
yearly  in  all  the  United  States,  it  is  stated  as  runniig  twice  daily  from  Phi- 
ladelphia to  Pittsburgh.  The  truth  is,  that  the  mail  is  divided — part  put  ia 
one  coach,  and  part  in  another.  Both  set  out  from  Philadelphia,  and  make 
their  way  westward;  and  the  mail,  though  it  goes  in  different  parcels,  goes 
but  once  a  day  over  the  road.  So  far  as  the  public  ititerest  is  con- 
cerned, it  were  just  as  well  to  put  it  in  different  mail  bags  in  the  same 
coach,  and  let  the  department  credit  itself  with  each  ?nail  bag  as  a  separate 
mail  passing  over  the  road,  as  to  put  it  in  difl'erent  coaches,  and  give  credit 
for  each  coacli.  But  so  it  is;  and  on  this  single  route  the  department  has 
set  down  to  its  own  credit  220,510  miles  of  n)ail  transportation  more  than  it 
is  entitled  to.  (See  also,  in  reference  to  the  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg  routCj 
Docs.  No.  85,86,  87.) 

Reeside's  Contract — Philadelphia  to  Nev/  York. 

The  contract  of  .Tames  Reeside  to  carry  the  mail  on  route  No.  951,  from 
Philadelphia  to  New  York,  v;as  noticed  in  the  former  report  of  your  com- 
mittee as  evidence  of  the  incorrectness  of  the  official  reports  from  the  de- 
partment; and  also  of  the  extravagant  extra  allowances  which  had  been  made 
to  favorite  contractors.  VVe  propose  here  to  consider  it  only  in  its  latter 
aspect,  as  to  tiiat  the  evidence  since  taken  is  confined;  so  far  as  relates  to 
this  point,  it  is  noticed  in  the  former  report  ol  your  committee,  page  12, 
as  follows: 

"  It  is  stated  in  the  report  of  the  18th  of  April,  1832,  (doc.  212,  p.  2,) 
that  James  Reeside  is  the  contractor  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  from 
Philadelphia  to  Nevir  York,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  daily,  at  an  annual 
compensation  of  $0,000,  for  four  years,  from  the  1st  day  of  January,  1833. 
By  the  report  of  the  3d  of  ?viarch,  1834,  the  contract  is  stated  at  twice  a 
day,  and  the  annual  compensation  (doc.  138,  p.  186,)  at  -  $20,500 
He  was  allowed  (p.  187,)  for  extra  services  a  yearly  compensa- 
tion of         --._-__  5,125 


Increasing  the  compensation  on  this  route  from  iS6,000,  the  legal 

contract,  to  .--->_     .$25,(325 


[  86  ]  •  60 

And  an  express  rnnil  was  ordered  to  be  run  on  the  same  route  at 

yearly  compt'usation  of      -  -  -  _  -  3,150 


Making  the  grand  total  yearly    -----     $28,775 

It  was  impossible  for  the  committee,  at  that  time,  to  investigate  all  the 
circumstances  connected  with  this  route,  and  they  have  considered  it  proper 
to  pursue  their  inquiries  in  relation  to  it.  This  became  the  more  necessary, 
as  the  Postmaster  General,  in  his  address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
comments  upon  this  part  of  the  report,  denying  its  correctness.  It  is  due, 
therefore,  to  the  exhibition  oftri/fh,zn(\  a  pioptr  understanding  of  the  con- 
duct of  the  departnieni,  that  the  facts  should  he  fully  detailed. 

That  the  facts  might  he  correctly  understood,  tlie  committee  called  for  the 
advertisements  upon  this  route  951;  the  several  proposals  which  were  made, 
and  the  contract  which  was  executed;  and  they  annex  copies  of  them  to  (his 
report.  The  advertisement  is  the  guide,  and  the  only  guide  by  vvhicli  bid- 
ders can  make  their  offers  for  cirrying  the  mail,  unless  it  happen  unfortu- 
nately for  the  public  interest  that  they  have  "-well  ivis/iers''  in  the  office, 
and  are  permitted  to  know,  not  only  the  open  and  public  wishes  of  the  de- 
partment, but  its  secret  purposes  also.      This  advertisement  is 

"  951.  From  New  York,  N.  Y.,  by  Jersei/  Ci/v,  N.  J.,  Newark,  Eliza- 
feethtovvn,  Railway,  New  Brunswick,  Kingstonj  Princeton,  Trenton,  JMor- 
risvilie.  Pa.,  Tully  T.nvn,  Bristol,  Andalu-.ia,  Holmesburg,  and  Fraukfjrd, 
to  Philadel|jhia,  ninety  miles  and  back  every  day  in  four  horse  post  coaches; 
leave  New  York  every  day  at  3  P.  M.,  arrive  at  Philadelphia  next  day  by 
6  A.  M.;  leave  Philadelphia  every  day  at  3  P.  M.,  and  arrive  at  New 
York  next  day  at  6  A.  M." 

A  plain  bidder,  unversed  in  the  management  of  post  office  contracts,  would 
naturally  suppose  that  the  whole  mail  was  to  be  carried  once  a  day,  and 
once  only  each  way,  starling  at  3  and  arriving  at  6  o'clock;  but  this  view 
of  the  matter  wouhl  cert'ainly  lead  him  to  an  offer  which  the  dej)artment 
would  not  accept.  Under  this  advertisement  four  bids  or  proposals  were 
made,  the  copies  of  which  are  refr;rred  to. 

Doremus  and  Thoinpson  (see  Doc.  92) offered  to  carry  the  mail,  ''agreea- 
bly to  the  advertisement,"  for  the  yearly  rom|ien.«ation  of  §19,500,  and  '-'fur- 
nish guard  forit  freeof  expense  to  the  Post  Office  Department."  Ezra  Piatt 
and  Co.  (see  Doc.  93)  ofltjred  to  carry  it  for  S8,000,  "according  to  the  adver- 
tisement," or  for  15,000  in  ehv^n  hours,  or  in  safety  carriac;es  maoe  iov  the 
express  purpose  of  conveying  mails,  in  ten  Ivmrs.  fur  jNS,000  dollars.  The 
Union  Line  Stage  Company  (see  Doc.  94)  offered  to  carry  it ''  according  to  the 
advertisement,"  for  ^13, 200, for  the  first  of  the  four  years;  for  (he  remaining 
three  years  their  offer  was  to  carry  the  great  mai!  by  the  steamboats  and  the 
Camden  and  Amboy  railroad,  leaving  each  cily  at  3  o'clock,  and  arriving  at 
12,  making  nine  hours:  the  mail  by  land  on  the  route,  and  within  the  houis 
stated  in  the  auvuriisenient,  dady,  in  two  liorse  jjoat  coaches  They  lurtner 
offeied  to  carry  a  morning  mail  as  it  was  at  tiiat  time  carried,  for  the  first 
year,  and  for  the  other  three  years  by  steamboats  and  railroad,  leaving  at  6 
A.  M.  and  arriving  3  P.  M.,  being  nine  hour-^,  for  S  16,000,  in  compensa- 
tion for  (he  whole  service.  They  offered  also  to  include  the  then  contractor, 
Mr.  Reeside,  in  their  contract. 


61  [  86  ] 

James  Reeside  offered  to  carry  the  mail,  according  to  the  advertisement, 
for  $6,000,  or  to  make  the  following  improvements,  "which,"  he  adds, 
*'«re  required  by  the  present  state  of  the  country;''''  to  carry  it  twice  a 
day  during  the  running  of  the  steamboats,  the  principal  mail  to  go  from  of- 
fice to  office  in  thirteen  hours,  leaving  at  7  P.  M.  and  arriving  next  day  at 
8  A.  M. ,  for  $19,000,  which  was  to  include  all  the  improvements  to  which 
he  bound  himself.     The  improvements  he  states  in  his  bid  to  be 

1.  "  Such  increased  expedition  to  the  mail  between  New  York  and  New 
Haven  as  to  leave  New  York  after  the  arrival  of  this  mail,  and  arrive  at 
New  Haven  in  time  to  keep  the  connexion  perfect,  and  without  any  inter- 
ruption or  delay  to  Boston,  and  also  the  same  expedition  in  returning- 
■which  improvements,"  he  stated,  "  would  require  lour  additional  teams 
and  increased  expense  of  at  least  §4,000  per  annum.  This,  by  a  corres- 
ponding improvement  between  Washington  city  and  Philadelphia,  which  is 
perfectly  feasible^  will  expedite  tlic  mail  one  whole  day  between  Washing- 
ton and  Boston,»and  prevent  many  failures  by  causing  the  mail  to  cross  the 
Hudson  at  all  times  by  daylight." 

2.  "  The  other  mail  to  leave  the  cities  in  the  steamboats  at  six  A.  M. 
and  arrive  at  five  P.  M.,  being  eleven  hours." 

3.  *<The  mail  shall  always  be  guarded  with  suitable  fire  arms,  and  during 
the  night  always  attended  with  double  guards,  at  my  own  expense*  a  de- 
fence rendered  necessary  by  the  importance  of  the  mail." 

4.  ','  W^henever  Go  vernmentexpresses  shall  be  required,  I  will  convey  them 
in  the  shortest  time  practicable,  without  any  expense  to  the  department." 

5.  '« To  carry  the  mail  with  as  much  speed  as  man  and  horses  or  raa- 
chinery  will  allow,  whether  on  the  railroad  when  completed,  or  any  nart  of 
it,  whether  by  steamboat  during  ;he  .season,  or  in  four  horse  post  coaches  at 
all  times  of  the  day,  and  at  any  season  of  the  year,  always  using  such  expe- 
dition as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Postmaster  General,  and  with  the  same 
rapidity  as  any  express  can  be  conveyed." 

6.  By  a  postscript  it  is  further  "  distinctly  understood  that  he  was  to  carry 
and  deliver  the  mail  at  the  two  offices  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  the 
department  defraying  the  expense  of  barge  and  oarsmen  in  ferrying  it 
across  the  river." 

7.  "It  is  also  distinctly  understood  that  the  mail  shall,  at  all  times  both 
winter  and  summer,  run  through  both  ways,  from  office  to  office,  in  thirteen 
hours.  And  when  times  of  arrival  and  departure  sre  altered,  the  same  ex- 
pedition shall  be  kept  up  without  any  increase  of  expense  to  the  depart- 
ment." 

Under  this  advertisement,  and  these  several  bids,  the  contract  was  given 
to  Reeside  in  preference  to  the  others,  as  the  lowest  bidder.      (See  Doc, 
No.  95.)     He  offered,  at  SG,C00,  to  cyr;y  the  mail  on  a  route  on  tuhich  he 
hadf  under  a  former  contract^  received  :510,900,  (Report  3d  March   1834 
page  50,)  with  extra  allowances. 

The  amount  of  his  bid  creates  at  once  an  unfavorable  impression  as  to  the 
fairness  of  the  transaction.  A  contractor,  by  this  practice  of  bidding  very- 
low,  entirely  beneath  a  fit  and  proper  compeniation,  and  adding  improve- 
merfts  "required  by  the  present  state  of  the  country,"  may  secure  any  con- 
tract that  the  favoritism  of  the  departmeui  is  disposed  to  comer.  It  leads, 
by  almost  inevitable  consequence,  to  deception  and  fraud;  and  even  if  these 


[  86  ]  «2 

be  avoided,  it  altogether  prevents  competition.  The  other  bidders  did  not, 
for  they  could  not  know  what  improvements  Reeside  proposed,  or  the  de- 
partment desired,  and  therefore  could  not  otfer  to  make  thoso  T-rriprove- 
ments.  With  regard  to  them,  there  was  no  competition;  the  vvholc^^Vujcct  of 
advertisements  and  bids  was  defeated.  In  comparing  the  several  bids,  the 
commiftec  can  perceive  no  just  and  fair  grounds  on  which  the  preference 
was  awarded  to  the  bids  of  Reeside.  Compared  with  that  of  Piatt  &  Co., 
and  that  of  the  Union  Line,  it  was  to  be  preferred  neither  in  point  of  econo- 
my nor  expedition.  It  contained,  indeed,  a  lower  sum  for  carrying  the  mail 
daily  within  the  time  mentioned,  but  it  is  perfectly  apparent  that  the  de- 
partment did  not  mean  to  have  the  mail  conveyed  in  that  way  alone; 
1st,  because  it  had  been,  before  that  time,  carried  differently  by  Reeside, 
with  the  full  approbation  of  the  department,  and  with  large  extra  allow- 
ances. Two  mails  were  then  running  between  the  two  cities.  And  2d,  be- 
cau-ie  immediately  after  the  bidding,  the  dejjartment  continued  the  iormer 
arrangement  of  two  mails  daily,  and  ordered  improvements.at  an  enormous 
increase  of  price. 

It  is  equally  apparent  that  Reeside  did  not  mean  to  rely  on  his  offer 
of  £6,000  for  his  compensation,  because  he.  had,  before  that  time,  been  re- 
ceiving a  much  larger  sum,  and  because  his  ^'  improvements  required  by  the 
state  of  the  country,"  feii  in,  in  several  particulars,  v/ith  the  mode  in  which 
the  mail  was  ihsn  carried  by  himself,  and  which  he  knew  would  and  musjt 
be  continued,  lie  made  a  low  bid  to  secure  the  contract  "  according  to  the 
advertisement j^^  and  looked  to  his  '-improvements'^  for  his  profits.  The 
further  investigation  of  this  subject  will  more  conclusively  show  that  this 
view  of  the  bid  accepted  is  correct.  Reeside  seems  to  have  understood  the 
depf<rtment,  and  "  the  state  of  the  country."  The  other  bidders  were  less 
fortunate,  though  their  bids  were  not  less  favorable  to  the  public  interests. 

The  bids  were  decided  upon  on  the  4th  of  October,  1S31,  and  on  the 
15th,  eleven  days  after,  the  contract  appears  to  have  been  executed. — (See 
contract.)  Aft«r  stating  the  route  according  to  the  advertisement,  it  adds, 
"  The  dep-irtment  is  to  defray  the  expense  of  carrying  the  mail  across  the 
Hudson  river;"  and  then  the  improvements  arc  enclosed  in  a  bracket  before 
the  sum  to  be  paid,  in  the  following  word^:  [It  is  hereby  stipulated  that  the 
contractor  shall,  whenever  the  Postmaster  General  shall  direct,  so  expedite  as 
to  always  run  from  post  office  to  post  office  through  the  entire  route  in  thir- 
teen hours:  shall  run  two  mails  a  day  during  steamboat  navigation,  one  to 
leave  the  respective  cities  in  the  morning  and  the  other  in  the  evening; 
and  always  give  such  further  increased  expedition  as  may  at  any  lime  be 
necessary  to  perfect  the  connexion  at  each  end  of  the  route;  shall  furnish  the 
mail  with  a  double  armed  guard  at  his  own  expense,  and  so  expedite  as  to 
gain  one  hour  between  New  York  and  New  Haven,  or  more,  if  required;  aad 
furnish  government  expresses  when  required,  for  the  additional  sum  of  thir- 
teen thousand  dollars  per  year.  And  if  a  second  daily  mail  shall  be  requii-ed 
by  land  during  the  winter,  he  shall  carry  the  sanae  for  the  further  suna  of 
fifteen  hundred  dollars  a  year.] 

A  comparison  of  the  contract  with  the  bid  will  show  that  they  vary  in 
several  particulars,  evincing  that  the  bid  was  not  the  guide  to  the  contract^ 
however,  it  might  have  had  efficiency  enough  to  secure  it  to  the  contractot. 
But  the  committee  will  not  detain  the  Senate  by  pointing  out  the  variancea, 


03  [  S«  ] 

all  of  which  appear  to  be  beneficial  to  the  contractor,  not  to  the  public; 
they  deem  it  more  important  to  exhibit  the  facts  as  they  find  them  rela- 
ting to  the  execution  of  the  contract.  There  is  upon  the  maro;iii  of  the 
contract,  in  red  ink,  an  endorsement  in  the  followina;  words:  "the  in- 
creased service  stipulated  in  the  contract  ivas  directed  by  the  Postmas- 
ter Gent ral //-om  the  beginning,  for  which  he  is  entitled  to  the  additional 
sum  of  ^13,000;  and  for  ihe  second  mail,  during  the  v\»inter,  the  further 
sum  of  §1,500  per  year,"  As  the  contract  was  executed  according  lo  the 
cidvertjsement  anri  bid,  for  a  mail,  for  6,000  dollars,  and  as  the  improve- 
ments  were  merely  inserted  in  brackets,  as  services  to  be  performed  when 
the  Paslmasier  General  should  direct,  the  committee  desired  to  know 
when  this  endor-^ement  was  made,  and  wlien  the  contractor  was  entitled  to 
receive  compens.ition.  The  endorsement  was  vvii.hout  date,  and  did  notfnr- 
iiish  the  infi^mation.  They  therefore  examined  O.B.  Brown,  (see  Doc.  96,) 
who  supe:intended  the  Icttings  and  contracts  in  that  division^'  in  iS31.  He 
stated  that  the  endorsement  was  in  his  iiandwriting;  and  in  answer  to -various 
questions  said,  "I  do  not  know,  but  i  presume  about  the  time  of  the  corai- 
mencement  of  the  service  under  the  contract;  I  do  not  know  that  they 
were  both  made  at  the  same  time,  but  I  presume  the  latter  was  made  ;»  little 
after  the  first,  from  the  appearance.  I  have  no  distinct  rt'coileciion  of  the 
orders  giv-en  to  make  those  endorsements,  or  of  tiie  circumstances,  except 
that  the  Posimas'er  General  did  direct  these  improvements  to  be  made,  and 
the  endorsements  on  the  contract.  1  do  not  recollect  if  these  improvements 
were  verb*  I  or  in  writing.  I  cannot  tell  if  there  areany  popers  or  inemoran- 
dmu.s  showing  these  orders.  Those  papers,  if  any,  are  with  Major  Ilobbie;  I 
have  no  recollection  if  there  were,  nor  should  i  be  likely  to  recollect  it  if 
there  were." 

Question.  "  In  whose  handwriting  are  the  schedules  annexed  to  the  con- 
tract, one  dated  14th  May,  1332,  the  otner  25lh  February,  1833?" 

Answer.  "  I  cannot  tell,  nor  have  I  any  recolleciion  by  wiiose  orders  they 
were  made,  nor  time  of  maldng,  further  than  the  date.  I  do  not  know  when 
this  schedule  was  made,  but  presunve  it  was  made  oi*t  at  the  commencement 
of  the  contract.  The  schedule  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Thomas  Addison,  I 
think." 

There  ought  certainly  to  have  been  wo  dilliculty  in  the  historv  of  this  en- 
dorsement.  It  should  not  have  been  without  date;  the  records  themselves 
ought  to  have  shown  the  time,  as  well  as  the  sanction  of  the  Po.^imaster 
Generiil.  The  officer  who  superintended  the  contracts  ought  to  have  l>een 
able  to  explain  it.  It  is  the  essential  contract  on  the  side  of  the  department, 
both  as  to  t-ervice  and  pay.  It  authorizes  all  the  improvements,  gives  vali- 
dity and  operation  to  tlie  clause  in  the  br3cket?s  and  raises  the  compt  nsation 
of  the  contractor  from  S6,000  to  $S0,500. 

It  is  difficult  to  give  credit  to  the  ^^pre.nimption^^  of  the  witness,  as  to 
the  time  and  circumstances  attending  this  endorsement,  or  that  it  was  made 
at  a  very  early  day. 

I'he  endorsement  in  its  words  refers  to  time  past.  The  increa.sed  service, 
&c.,  was  directed,  &;c.,from  the  beginning,  a  phraseology  quite  unnatural 
respecting  a  present  or  very  recent  transaction.  Again:  if  it  was  made  at 
the  time  of  the  contract,  no  good  reason  can  be  perceived  why  the  contract 
should  not  have  embraced  it,  and  been  made  for  the  improvements  as  well 
as  the  bid  of  JS6,000;  and  if  made  "  from  the  beginning,"  or  shortly  after 


[  86  ]  64 

it,  the  committee  are  nt  a  loss  to  perceive  why  Mr.  Reeside's  account  was 
left  in  the  condition  in  which  they  found  it.  It  was  called  for  in  September 
last,  and  after  examinjiiion,  copies  of  it  were  ordered  and  furnished. 

Throughout  the  year  1832,  up  to  the.  \st  of  January^  1833,  no  notice 
of  this  route  or  the  improvements  is  to  be  found  in  it.  They  make  their 
first  appearance  on  the  1st  of  January,  1833:  now  if  the  improvements  were 
ordered  ^«  at  the  beginning,"  if  the  .services  and  compensation  upon  this 
route  had  been  fixed;  why  was  it  omitted?  The  $20,500  are  all  charged 
and  allowed  on  the  1st  of  January,  1833;  why  v/ere  not  the  charges  and 
allowances  made  at  the  end  of  each  quarter?  It  was  so  done  in  other  con- 
tracts  which  Mr.  Reesidehad,  and  there  was  no  good  reason  for  not  doing  it 
in  this.  He  was  in  debt  to  the  department  at  the  end  of  the  first  quarter 
gl  1,079  21,  at  the  end  of  the  second  quarter  ^30,531  21,  and  at  the  end  of  the 
third  !S!26,714  04.  (See  Reeside's  accoimt,  Doc.  No.  1.)  If  there  was  a  liqui- 
dated and  settled  claim,  a  specific  agreement  existing  between  him  and  the  de- 
partment, for  a  fixed  sum,  as  this  endorsement  asserts,  it  is  strange  that  the  cre- 
dit was  not  given,  and  these  balances  lessened  thereby.  Besides,  the  Postmaster 
General  asserts  in  his  address,  (page  13,)  that  "  two  propositions  were  made; 
the  smaller  loas  first  accepted-,  afterwards,  for  the  better  accommodation 
of  the  public )  the  greater  service  ivas  required,  and  of  course  the  higher 
compensation  given."  If  this  be  true,  the  endorsement  was  hot  made  before, 
or  at  the  beginning,  and  the  higher  compensation  oujjht  not  to  have  been 
credited  to  the  coniractor  from  the  beginning.  The  endorsement  seems  to 
be  naturally  connected  with  the  time  when  the  allowance  for  the  extra 
service  was  made,  at  some  period  subsequent  to  the  execution  of  the  con- 
tract, and  when  it  became  necessary  to  give  a  sanction  to  payments  previ- 
ously made  to  the  contractor;  and  it  is  perhaps  unfortunate,  on  account  of 
the  inferences  which  may  be  drawn,  that  the  time  of  the  actual  credits  to 
the  contractor  was  immediately  succeeding  an  important  presidential  elec- 
tion, in  which  he  was  not  inactive,  and  also  that  there  should  have  been 
allowed  at  the  very  same  time,  on  this  same  route,  several  other  items,  some 
of  which  are  not  to  be  fdund  in  the  accounts,  either  preceding  or  subsequent 
to  that  particular  date,  1st  January,  1833,  and  others  are  unsupported  by 
any  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  services.  Exclusive  of  the  $20,500 
before  nKentioned,  but  including  the  express  mail,  they  amount  to  about 
$9,95fi,  Mud  had  the  effect  of  reducing  the  balance  of  the  advances  made 
to  the  fontraclor  from  $26,714  04,  as  it  appeared  on  the  1st  of  October 
preceding,  down  to  the  unimportant  sum  of  $1,314  26.  These  items  are 
not 'speeified  in  this  place,  as  the  attention  of  the  Senate  will  be  called  to 
them  in  anoiker  aspect. 

Tlie  committee  have  endeavored,  as  far  as  practicable  amidst  the  impedi- 
ments whlc'j  they  have  had  to  enco  mter,  to  ascertain  the  manner  in  which 
this  contract  has  been  executed,  and  ihe  nature  and  amount  of  the  sllow- 
ances  v/hich  have  been  made  upon  it,  and  they  submit  to  the  Senate  the 
results  of  their  inquiries  upon  several  points. 

The  advertisement  was  tocurry  the  mail  from  <' Nev/  York,  N.  Y.,  by- 
Jersey  City,  &e,  to  Phikdelphia."  The  bid  was  to  carry  the  mail  accord- 
ing to  the  advertisement  for  $6,000.  In  the  improved  bid  it  was  ''  distinctly 
understood  that  he  v/as  to  deliver  the  mail  at  the  post  office  in  the  city  of 
JSevv  York,  and  receive  it  at  the  post  office  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and 


65  [  86  ] 

convey  it  between  that  office  and  the  river,  and  across  the  river,  but  that 
the  department  will  defray  the  expense  of  barge  and  oarsmen  in  ferrying 
it  across  the  river,  &c. 

The  contract  was  for  carrying  the  mail  "from  New  York,  N.  Y,,  by 
Jersey  City,  &c.  to  Philadelphia,  the  department  to  pay  the  expense  of 
carrying  the  mail  across  ihe  Hudson  river."  There  is  a  discrepancy  between 
the  bid  and  the  contract;  by  the  former,  the  department  was  to  "  defray  the 
expense  of  barge  and  oarsmen;"  by  the  latter,  the  department  was  to  defray 
the  expense  of  "  carrying  the  mail  across  the  river."  But  the  discrepancy 
is  not  important,  for  by  both,  as  well  as  by  the  advertisement,  Reeside  was 
to  carry  it  from  city  to  city,  and  of  course  from  office  to  office.  He  was 
to  deliver  and  receive  it  at  the  office  in  New  York,  and  convey  it  between 
that  office  and  the  river,  and  across  the  river. 

Joseph  Dod,  (see  Doc.  97,)  in  his  deposition,  states  that  he  has  carried  the 
mail  between  the  office  in  New  York  and  Jersey  City  since  1817.  *'  From 
1817  until  Reeside  became  a  contractor,  he  received  from  the  department 
500  dollars  per  year;  that  Reeside  then  allowed  and  paid  him  600  dollars." 
So  that,  under  his  former  contract  to  carry  the  mail  from  city  to  city,  Reeside 
did  carry  it,  or  rather  pay  for  carrying  it  across  the  river  to  and  from  the 
office.  B}'  express  words  he  was  bound  to  do  so  under  the  present  contract. 
Yet  Joseph  Dod  swears,  that  in  1832  he  again  became  a  contractor  with  the 
department  to  carry  this  mail  from  the  office  to  Jersey  City  at  the  rate  of  800 
dollars,  wliich  he  still  receives.  The  committee  called  for  a  copy  of  Dod's 
contract  and  account,  and  they  are  appended  to  the  report,  and  sustain  his 
oath.  (See  Doc.  $S.)  It  thus  appears,  that  in  direct  violation  of  the  contract 
with  Reeside,  the  department  has  paid  800  dollars  per  year  for  performino-  a 
part  of  the  service  which  Reeside  was  bound  to  perform,  even  under  the 
original  bid;  in  other  words,  has  given  that  sum  of  money  to  him  annually, 
amounting  now  to  more  than  2,400  dollars. 

Another  of  the  improvements  on  this  route  embraced  in  the  bid  and  the 
contract  was,  guarding  the  mail.  The  bid  engaged  that  "the  mail  shall 
always  be  guarded  with  suitable  fire  arm*,  and  during  the  night  always  at- 
tended with  double  guards,  at  my  own  expense^  a  detence  rendered  neces- 
sary by  tlie  importance  of  the  mail." 

By  the  contract  he  was  to  furnish  the  mail  with  a  ^'double  armed  guard  at 
his  own  expense.'^  Joseph  Dod,  who  carries  the  mail  from  the  office  in  New 
York,  and  delivers  it  to  Reeside  at  Jersey  City,  and  is  familiar  with  the  ar- 
rival and  departure  of  all  the  mails  between  the  two  cities,  swears,  "Mr.  Ree- 
side has  two  guards,  one  going  and  one  coming,  and  has  constantly  had  them 
since  the  contract.  The  one  leaves  here  (New  York)  to  day,  the  other 
leaves  Philadelphia,  one  each  way,  and  go  through  from  city  to  city  with 
the  great  southern  mail,  which  leaves  Market  Feld  Street  at  four,  by  the 
boat.  By  a  guard  I  mean  a  person  who  watches  the  mail  bags  during  their 
transportation,  and  sees  to  their  removal  from  one  conveyance  to  another. 
The  guard  goes  regularly,  or  at  least  I  start  him  regularly,  I  do  not  know 
what  Reeside  pays  the  guards.  They  are  armed.  I  am  not  aware  of  their 
being  suspended  at  any  time.  None  of  the  other  mails  are  guarded.  The 
mail  which  goes  by  land  through  Newark  to  Philadelphia  by  night  is  not 
guarded." 

9 


[  86  ]  '66 

It  thus  appears,  1st.  That  the  mail  carried  by  night,  when  there  may  be 
danger  of  robbery,  and  on  the  route  mentioned  a7id  contracted  for,  it  is 
not  guarded  at  all.  2d.  That  this  ^^  double  armed  guards  a  defence  ren- 
dered necessary  by  the  importance  of  the  mail,"  has  dwindled  down  to  a 
person  who  watches  the  mail  bags  during  their  transportation  in  steamboats, 
and  on  the  railroad,  and  sees  to  their  removal  from  one  place  to  another. 
As  the  committee  cannot  well  perceive  how  a  contractor  can  carrythe  mail 
without  having  a  driver  or  some  person  toperform  this  duty,  to  watch  the  bags 
and  see  to  their  removal,  they  cannot  regard  this  improvement  as  a  very  impor- 
tant consideration  in  making  the  contract,  nor  as  justifying  any  increase  of 
compensation  on  this  route.  If  it  occasioned  the  allowance  of  any  part  of 
the  sum  of  20,500  dollars,  the  money  was  uselessly  and  improperly  thrown 
away,  and  ought  to  be  no  longer  paid. 

But  the  committee  find  that  this  item  in  the  contract  has  not  been  without 
its  use.  Under  the  same  date  of  the  1*/  of  January,  1833,  when  the  ba- 
lance against  him  was  so  greatly  reduced,  there  is  found  in  Mr.  Reeside's 
account  (see  Doc.  1)  the  following  allowance  :  "  Passage  of  mail  guards  both 
ways  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York  city,  from  1st  January  to  31st  De- 
cember, 1832,  (days  366)  one  passenger  each  way,  every  day,  making  732 
passages,  at  3  dollars  per  day,  being  half  price  for  each  passenger,  2,196  dol- 
lars." Thus,  in  violation  of  the  bids  and  promises  by  which  the  contract  was 
obtained — in  violation  of  the  express  terms  of  the  contract  itself,  Mr.  Reeside 
was,  on  the  1st  of  January,  1833,  paid  this  large  sum  of  money.  The  commit- 
tee need  not  comment  upon  such  a  fact;  its  impropriety  is  abundantly  apparent. 

But  the  committee  are  of  opinion  that  there  has  been  even  greater  impro- 
priety upon  this  route.  The  alternative  bid  of  the  contractor,  setting  out 
his  manifold  improvements,  seems  to  have  been  used  only  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  him  the  contract,  and  the  bid  and  the  contract  itself  seem  to  have 
been  entirely  forgotten  in  the  enormous  payments  over  and  beyond  it. 

Government  Expresses  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia. 

Two  mails  were  to  be  carried:  one  leaving  the  cities  in  the  morning,  and 
the  other  in  the  afternoon;  and  for  the  morning  mail  during  the  winter  1,500 
dollars  were  to  be  paid,  in  addition  to  the  19,000  dollars  for  the  principal 
mail  and  the  improvements.  Mr.  Reeside  in  his  bid  engages  and  binds  him- 
self thus:  "  whenever  Government  expresses  shall  be  required,  I  will  con- 
vey them  in  the  shortest  time  practicable  without  any  expense  to  the  depart- 
ment." And  he  adds,  that  he  will  "  carry  the  mail  with  as  much  speed  as 
man  and  hor.ses  and  macljinery  vviil  allow,  whether  on  the  railroad,  when 
completed,  or  any  part  of  it;  whether  by  steamboat  during  the  season,  or  in 
four  horse  pcsi  coaches  at  all  limes  of  the  day,  and  at  any  season  of  the  year; 
always  using  such  expedition  as  the  Postmaster  General  may  prescribe,  and 
with  the  same  rapidity  as  any  express  can  be  conveyed."  It  was  determined, 
it  seems,  that  neither  the  steamboat  line,  railroad,  nor  safety  carriages  should 
get  the  contract  from  him.  The  contract  binds  him  to  run  through  in  thir- 
teen hours,  to  run  two  mails  a  day,  morning  and  afternoon,  "  always  give 
such  further  increased  expedition  as  may  at  any  time  be  necessary  to  per- 
fect the  connexion  at  each  end  of  the  route,  and  furnish  Government  ex- 
presses when  required,  for   the  additional  sum  of  13,000  dollars  per  year." 

If  the  mails  weie  faithfully  carried  under  such  a  bid  and  contract,  the 
committee  cunnot  perceive  how  a  necessity  could  exist  for  another  regular 
express  mail,  nor  for  any  expresses,  unless  upon  some  sudden  and  pressing 


3,000 

00 

7S7 

SO 

787 

50 

787 

50 

^8,512 

50 

67  [  86  ] 

emergency.  If  two  mails  were  run  with  any  thing  like  the  promised  ra- 
pidity, leaving  both  the  cities  every  morning  and  afternoon,  certainly  all 
the  purposes  of  correspondence,  business,  and  news  would  be  answered, 
and  all  the  just  claims  upon  the  Government  in  relation  to  the  mails  satis- 
fied. The  two  mails  were  run  morning  and  evening;  at  least  they  have 
been  paid  for  at  the  rate  of  $20,500.  But  in  addition  to  this,  we  find  in  Mr. 
Reeside's  account,  the  following  items: 

1st  January,  1833.     Express  mail,  $787  50,  per  quarter. 

For  express  mail  from  l8t  January,  1832  -  -    ^         $3,150  00 

Extra  expense  incurred  in  keeping  three  extra.^teams  between 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  in  consequence  of  the  frequent 
detention  at  New  York  from  one  to  two  hours,  for  distribu- 
tion oi  foreign  mails,  they  frequently  arriving  just  as  the 
mail  was  departing,  from  1st  January  toSlst  December,  1632 

1st  April,  1833.    An  express  mail         .... 

1st  July,  1833.     An  express  mail  .... 

1st  October,  1833.     An  express  mail    .... 


Thus,  for  running  an  express  mail  for  one  year  and  nine  months,  and 
for  keeping  horses  to  meet  Jrequent  detentions  of  foreign  letters,  of  from 
one  to  two  hours,  the  contractor  received  $8,512  50  in  addition  to  $35,875, 
which  he  received  during  the  same  period  for  carrying  the  two  regular  daily 
mails.  A  contractor,  too,  who  was  bound  to  give  every  increased  expe- 
dition required,  and  to  carry  the  mail  with  as  much  speed  as  man  and  horses, 
and  machinery,  would  allow,  whether  on  railroads  or  in  steamboats,  by  day 
or  night,  summer  or  winter;  and  send  expresses  without  expense  to  the 
Government. 

There  is  also  the  following  item,  under  date  of  1st  January,  1833:  "  Send- 
ing southern  mail  four  trips  to  New  York,  when  the  steamboat  did  not  arrive 
to  keep  up  the  connexion,  at  150  dollars  per  trip,  600  dollars." — See  Doc.  1. 

But  the  matter  does  not  rest  here.  After  the  account  had  been  furnished 
to  the  committee,  and  it  appeared  by  it  that  the  department  was,  on  the  Ist 
April,  1834,  in  advance  to  Mr.  Reeside  $54,369  07,  the  officers  of  the  de- 
partment requested  its  return,  and  then  added  to  it,  as  of  that  date,  severt^ 
items,  amounting  in  all  to  .  •  .  .  ^27,849  76 

Still  leaving  a  balance  against  him  of      .  .  .  jS26,519  31 

Among  these  items,  so  added,  is  the  following: 

1st  April,  1834.  Running  the  daily  express  between  Philadelphia  and 
New  York,  90  miles  each  way,  through  in  six  hours,  by  special  orders  from 
the  Postmaster  General, yrom  SQth  January  to  8th.  March,  1833,  it  being 
3S  trips;  that  is  to  say,  that  two  seLs  of  horses  run  each  way  every  day, 
making  152  trips,  90  miles  each  trip,  at  one  dollar  per  mile  for  each  set  of 
horses,  ®  13, 680. 

An  express,  by  special  order,  for  38  successive  days,  at  an  expense  of 
360  dollars  per  day . 

Thus,  in  addition  to  the  two  daily  mails,  the  contractor  has  received  for 
express  mail  and  expresses  $22,792  50.  The  history  of  their  express  mail 
and  expresses  is  worthy  of  record.    The  express  mail  is  not  within  the  con- 


t  86  ]  68 

tract.  The  first  notice  taken  of  it  is  hy  another  red  ink  endorse^neni^ 
on  another  margin  of  the  contract,  in  these  words:  <'  For  an  express  mail 
hy  order  of  the  Postmaster  General,  3,150  dollars  per  yearf^  to  which 
there  is  added  in  brackets,  in  red  ink,  "  [dispensed  with — see  entry  foot  of 
contract.]"  To  this  endorsement  there  is  neither  date  nor  explanation. 
When  it  was  made,  and  when  the  order  was  given  by  the  Postmaster  Gene- 
ral, the  committee  cannot  inform  the  Senate.  But  there  is  no  difficulty  upon 
the  point  of  payment;  the  account  of  Reeside  shows  that  it  was  paid  "from 
the  beginning,"  and  up  to  the  1st  of  October,  1833,  five  months  after  it 
was  dispensed  with;  and  also  that  during  those  five  months  he  was  receiv- 
ing at  the  rate  of  5,125  dollars  per  year  for  the  substitute  for  it — for  another 
arrangement  of  mails,  which  induced  the  Postmaster  General  to  dispense 
with  the  express.  This  lapping  of  contracts,  it  will  be  perceived,  has  not 
been  very  uncommon  with  this  contractor.  That  the  Senate  may  understand 
the  operation  on  this  point,  they  insert  here  a  copy  ol  "  entry  at  foot  of 
contract:" 

"  1833.  25th  April.  J,  Reeside  engages  to  run  in  twelve  hours  between 
Philadelphia  and  New  York,  agreeably  to  the  printed  schedule  of  this  date, 
and  to  carry  an  additional  vvay  mail  from  Philadelphia  to  Trenton  in  time  to 
lap  on  the  steamboat  mails,  and  back;  and  from  New  York  to  Brunswick 
with  like  connexion,  and  back  daily;  and  to  connect  the  way  mails  from  the 
post  office  at  Brunswick  with  the  steamboat  line,  also  to  connect  the  mails 
at  Philadelphia  between  steamboat  and  post  office.  The  two  horse  stage 
line  to  be  run  during  the  season  of  steamboat  navigation,  all  for  the  addi- 
tional sum  of  five  thousand  one  hundred  and  tvventy-five  dollars:  service  to 
commence  on  the  1st  of  May." 

November  19th,  1833.  "Express  mail  dispensed  with,  by  arrangement 
made  25ih  April,  1833.  Allowance  of  three  thousand  one  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars  to  cease  from  day  of  25th  April,  1833."  The  account  shows 
that  Reeside  was  paid  for  this  express  down  to  the  1st  October,  1833. 

The  committee  called  on  the  officers  of  the  department  for  a  statement  of 
the  arrivals  and  the  departures  of  the  mails  at  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
at  different  periods  during  this  contract,  and  received  a  report  from  the  assist- 
ant Postmaster  General,  S.  R.  Hobbie,  dated  30th  September,  1834,  from 
which  the  following  extracts  are  taken: — See  Doc.  99, 

"In  the  winter  of  1832  the  express  line,  during  the  session  of  Congress 
and  suspension  of  steamboat  navigation — 

"Left  Philadelphia  at  9  A.  M.,   then  10  A.  M. 

"Arrived  at  New  York  by  9  P.  M.,  then  10  P.  M. 

"  Left  New  York  at  7  A.  M.,  then  8  A.  M. 

"  Arrived  at  Philadelphia  by  7  P.  M.,  then  8  P.  M. 

"  This  connected  with  an  express  line  from  Washington  to  Philadelphia, 
established  for  the  purpose  of  getting  congressional  intelligence  into  Ntw 
York  in  time  for  the  New  York  morning  papers.  It  left  Washington  after 
the  receipt  into  the  post  office  of  the  Washington  morning  papers,  say  2 
A.  M.  of  the  day  previous  to  its  arrival  at  Philadelphia,  and  went  by  the 
way  of  Lancaster." 

In  the  summer  of  1833  the  running  of  the  great  mail  line,  and  of  the  se- 
cond or  city,  is  stated;  but  no  notice  is  taken  of  the  running  of  this  express 
loe.     The  report  then  adds: 


69  [  86  ] 

**  In  the  winter  of  1833  the  running  of  the  different  lines  appears  to  have 
been  the  same  as  in  the  winter  of  183-2  "  On  the  1st  of  May,  1833,  a  differ- 
ent arrangement  was  made,  and  this  line  dispensed  with. 

This  is  the  whole  account  of  this  express  mail,  and  the  reasons  for  its 
establishment,  afforded  by  the  department;  and  the  committee  direct  the 
attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  extraordinary  facts,  that  this  line  run  in  the 
winters  of  1832  and  1833,  but  did  not  run  in  the  summers  of  those  years; 
and  yet  the  contractor  is  paid  at  the  rate  of  3,150  dollars  per  year,  through 
both  summers,  and  for  the  entire  period  from  the  1^^  of  January^  1832, /o 
ihe  \st  of  October,  1833,  during  much  more  than  half  of  which  time  this 
jnail  did  not  run  at  all. 

The  committee,  entirely  dissatisfied  with  this  account  of  this  express 
xnail,  sought  for  information  from  other  sources,  and  called  before  them  se- 
veral persons  connected  with  the  post  offices  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia. 

Joseph  Dod  gave  an  account  of  four  mails,  which  could  not  apply  to 
this,  as  represented  by  the  Assistant  Postmaster  General,  and  added  that 
he  had  known  of  none  other,  except  the  horse  express,  which  will  be  here- 
after examined. — Sse  Doc.  97. 

Joseph  Benedict,  a  clerk  in  the  post  office  at  New  York  for  seven  years 
past,  and  who  had  charge  of  the  distributing  department,  gave  an  account 
of  the  two  mails  morning  and  evening,  and  of  the  horse  express,  and  added, 
that  he  knew  of  no  other. — See  Doc.  100. 

James  Page,  the  postmaster  at  Philadelphia,  stated  the  different  mails,  and 
that  he  knew  of  no  express  mail  running  on  this  route,  lie  was,  however, 
appointed  postmaster  on  the  11th  of  April,  1833. — See  Doc.  102. 

Beekman  Potter,  who  had  been  a  clerk  for  eight  years  in  the  post  office 
at  Philadelphia,  in  answer  to  the  question,  ''  Do  you  know  of  any  express 
mail  running  from  this  to  New  York  since  1st  January,  1832?"  described 
the  horse  express,  and  added,  ^'I  know  of  no  other  Government  express, 
or  express  mail,  except  the  above." — See  Doc.  103. 

The  committee  leave  this  evidence  to  the  consideration  of  the  Senate, 
•with  the  single  remark  that  it  exhibits  a  most  extraordinary  state  <^f  things. 
A  contractor,  who  is  bound  to  furnish  expresses  free  of  exj>ense,  and  to 
carry  the  mails  with  the  utmost  possible  rapidity,  receiving  in  one  year  and 
nine  months  $5,512  50  for  carrying  an  express  mail  not  mentioned  in  his 
contract,  authorized  by  an  unexplained  endorsement,  without  date,  in  red 
ink,  on  the  margin  of  his  contract,  and  which  is  stated  by  the  Assistant 
Postmaster  General  to  have  run  only  during  the  winter,  not  one  half  of  the 
time  charged,  and  which  these  officers,  connected  with  the  distribution  and 
carriage  of  the  mails,  know  nothing  about. 

The  committee  will  not  offer  any  comment  upon  the  two  items  before 
mentioned  for  the  extra  teams,  on  account  of  detention  for  foreign  letters,  3,000 
dollars,  and  the  four  trips  to  send  on  the  southern  mail,  600  dollars.  The 
evidence  respecting  them  is  appended,  and  when  examined,  will  leave  the  im- 
pression that  they  are  appropriately  placed  in  company  with  the  several  items 
to  which  the  attention  of  the  Senate  has  been  more  particularly  directed;  but  the 
item  respecting  the  horse  express  deserves  further  exposition. — See  Doc.  104. 
On  the  \st  of  October,  1834,  the  committee  called  on  the  Postmaster 
General  for  the  reasons  of  the  employment  of  this  express;  what  was  trans- 
mitted  by  it;  copies  of  the  instructions  respecting  it,  and  the  vouchers  on 
which  the  compensation  was  made.     Oa  the  30M  December  his  answer  was 


[  86  ]  70 

received:  it  is  appended  hereto.  (See  Doc.  105.)  By  reference  to  it,  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  reasons  assigned  are,  that  a  private  express  had  been  established 
between  New  York  and  Philadelphia  by  one  of  the  newspapers,  on  account  of 
"the  feelinsjs  of  deep  interest  in  the  minds  of  the  citizens,  of  the  politicians, 
and  of  the  commercial  community  of  the  city  of  New  York,"  respecting  the 
relations  of  South  Carolina  to  the  other  States,  and  the  course  pursuing;  by 
the  National  Executive;  by  which  express  news  from  the  south  and  from 
the  seat  of  Government  was  anticipated  one  day  in  advance  of  those  who 
depended  upon  the  mail  for  intelligence;  that  it  was  likely  to  produce  "an 
effect  injuiious  to  the  mercantile  interests  of  that  great  commercial  empo- 
rium;" that  "there  was  reason  to  believe  it  would  convey  all  kinds  of  mail- 
able matter,  including  letters  and  packets  for  the  proprietors  and  their  friends, 
which  would  very  sensibly  affect  the  revenues,  as  well  as  the  character  of 
the  department;"  and  that  "this  arrangement  was  called  for  by  the  editors 
of  the  daily  newspapers  of  the  city  of  New  York."  The  validity  of  these 
reasons  are  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Senate.  The  orders  for  the 
express  were  issued  from  the  department  at  Washington,  on  the  2Sth  of  Ja- 
nuary, 1833.  (See  0.  B.  Brown's  letter.  Doc.  108.)  Its  arrival  at  New  York 
is  noticed  in  the  letter  of  the  postmaster  as  of  the  31st  of  January.  (See  Doc. 
112) — (See  letter.)  The  charge  in  Reeside's  account  is  of  the  30th  of  Januaryy 
creating  an  apparent  overcharge  of  one  or  two  days.  The  call  from  the  editors 
of  newspapers  in  New  York  is  dated  7th  February,  1833,  seven  or  eight  days 
after  the  express  commenced,  and  does  not  relate  to  the  running  of  the  first 
express  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  but  to  one  started  from  Wash- 
ington city  to  Philadelphia  subsequently';  and  they  express  the  opinion  that 
it  need  not  last  more  than  a  week  or  two,  "  to  nip  the  plan  in  the  bud,  and 
effectually  put  a  stop  to  such  proceedings." — See  Doc.  115. 

The  orders  given  were  to  "  outrun  any  and  every  express  on  that  route, 
whatever  expense  it  may  involve."  "  Remember,  this  is  an  enterprise 
which  calls  upon  all  the  energies  of  the  '  celebrated  Reeside,'  and  you  must 
beat  every  express  at  least  an  hour,  and  as  much  more  as  you  can.  The 
credit  of  the  department  is  involved,  and  we  look  to  you  to  redeem  it.  No 
labor  or  expense  to  be  spared  in  doing  so.  Please  answer.  Begin  imme- 
diately; tke  department  will  not  let  you  lose  by  it."  (See  letter  of  0.  B. 
Brown,  January  22,  1833,  Doc.  106.)  The  answer  of  25th  January  has  a  N. 
B.  '*  I  will  say  to  a  certainty  that  I  will  go  from  this  city  to  New  York  in  six 
hours,  or  faster  than  any  other  one  can  do  it."  (See  Doc.  107.)  Upon  this  an- 
swer being  received,  orders  were  given  to  run  it  in  six  hours,  leaving  Phila- 
delphia at  one  o'clock,  if  the  southern  mail  had  arrived,  and  reaching  New 
York  by  seven;  the  return  to  be  in  the  same  time.  The  committee  do  not 
think  it  necessary  to  state,  in  detail,  how  far  the  order  and  the  promise  were 
met  in  the  execution.  They  refer  to  the  depositions  on  this  point,  especially 
to  that  of  Mr.  Hale,  (see  Doc.  121,)  with  the  accompanying  papers.  It  seems 
to  have  been  frequently  out  of  time.  That  it  was  generally  beaten  by  the  pri- 
vate express  of  Mr.  Hale,  and  that  it  failed  in  its  object.  The  return  express 
from  New  York  to  Philadelphia  was  also  wholly  unnecessary;  no  private  ex- 
press ran  that  way ,  and  nothing  relating  to  the  movements  in  South  Carolina, 
or  the  measures  of  the  General  Government  could  come  from  that  quarter, 
and  demand  special  despatch.  The  increased  cost  for  the  return  express, 
whatever  it  may  have  been,  was  wholly  without  the  excuse,  by  no  means 
satisfactory,  which  is  made  for  it  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York, 


71  [  86  ] 

The  committee  have  not  been  able  to  perceive  the  propriety  for  its  continu- 
ance for  so  great  a  length  of  time.  Ii  was,  however,  continued  under  the  or- 
ders which  weregwenfor  its  first  establishment.  Those  orders  were, "  This 
arrangement  is  to  be  continued  daily,  till  the  steamboat  mails  shall  become 
regular  as  during  the  summer  establishment;"  and  it  was  thus  continue<l 
after  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  when  there  was  no  rival  express,  and 
when  the  department  was  paying  for  three  other  mails  between  those  cities, 
which  started  at  6,  9,  and  2  o'clock  each  day,  and  which  cost  the  Govern- 
^23,650  annually;  furnishing  news  for  the  morning  papers.  The  deposi- 
tion of  Joseph  JDod,  (see  Doc.  97,)  and  the  statements  furnished  by  Mr. 
Hale  of  the  times  of  its  arrival,  &c,,  show  that  it  accomplished  but  little,  if 
any  thing,  of  the  intended  purposes  of  the  department. 

The  matter  carried  by  this  express  was  partial  in  its  character,  and, 
therefore,  it  was  at  least  questionable  in  expediency.  It  carried  only  ^^the 
exchange  papers,  from  the  south,  for  the  editors  in  the  city  of  Neiu  York, 
and  all  the  letters  for  the  New  York  city  delivery;^'  and  in  returning,  "  the 
exchange  newspapers,  from  the  east  and  north,  for  the  Philadelphia 
editors,  and  all  letters  for  the  Philadelphia  delivery." 

The  vouchers  upon  which  the  sum  of  SI 3,680  w;is  allowed  for  thi"^  thirty- 
eight  days' service  are,  a  statement  of  the  account  (see  Doc,  117)  by  Reeside 
at  one  dollar  per  mile  each  way,  with  the  joint  affidavit  of  VVm.  King,  Thomas 
Cromwell,  and  Stephen  Heartwell,  who  have  been  engaged  in  running  ex- 
presses,and  the  business  connected  therewitii:  that  "they  consider  the  charges 
therein  as  entirely  fair  and  reasonable,  and  no  more  than  a  just  remuneration 
for  said  services,  and  the  necessary  expenses  connected  therewith."  The 
account  is  without  date,  the  affidavit  is  of  the  12th  of  December,  1833,  The 
entry  in  the  account  of  Reeside  was  made  after  the  committee  had  received 
a  copy  of  his  account  from  the  department,  and  is  of  the  1st  of  April,  1834. 

Reeside  adds  to  his  account  a  statement  of  the  v/eight  of  the  mail,  the 
difficulties  of  the  roads,  and  the  injury  to  his  stock,  and  claims  S2,500  ad- 
ditional therefor;  and  Stephen  Heartwell  certifies,  (see  Doc.  118,)  "the  charge 
which  Mr.  Reeside  has  made  of  §2,500  is  astoright  as  my  judgment  will  serve 
me  to  do  justice  to  both  parties."  It  seems,  however,  that  this  item  was  not 
credited  on  the  books  of  the  deportment,  when  the  additions  to  the  account 
of  April  1,  1834,  were  made  in  October  last;  and  thus  far,  if  the  charge  be 
right,  the  contractor  has  been  treated  rather  harshly,  for  he  was  most  dis- 
tinctly assured  that  "  no  labor  or  expense  was  to  be  spared,"  and  that  "the 
department  would  not  let  him  lose  by  it." 

To  the  committee,  however,  the  charge  which  was  allowed  seemed  enor- 
mous, and  they  sought  for  information  in  regard  to  it.  Having  learned  that 
Abraham  C.  Schench  had  been  employed  by  Mr.  Hale  in  the  private  ex- 
press, they  called  him  as  a  witness.  (See  Doc.  122.)  He  estimated  the  value  of 
Reeside's  services  at  $8  per  mile  per  day,  or  $720  per  day  for  the  90  miles, 
which  would  have  amounted  to  $27,360  for  the  38  days;  an  estimate  which  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  of  much  value,  when  the  deposition  is  read  and  com- 
pared with  that  of  Mr.  Hale,  and  when  his  principles  of  calculation  are  un- 
derstood. The  committee  chose  not  to  rely  upon  it,  but  to  inquire  into  the 
items  which  would  compose  so  large  a  sum.  He  stated  them, and  among 
others  considered  Reeside  as  having  injured  his  hoi'ses  to  half  the  amount 
of  their  value,  by  run7iing  them  5  miles  per  day  for  38  days,  at  a  rat?. 


[  86  1  72 

not  ove7'  15  miles  an  hour.  Yet  even  with  this  allowance,  amounting  by 
his  estimate  to  $3,060,  and  adding  all  the  other  items  which  the  committee 
eould  suppose  would  enter  into  a  statement  of  expenses,  and  giving  to  Mr. 
Reeside  $1,000  for  his  own  trouble,  they  do  not  perceive  how  the  account 
could  have  arisen  to  much  more  than  $6,000,  not  the  one  half  of  the  sum 
which  has  been  allowed. 

John  A.  Wertt  was  also  called  to  this  point.  (See  Doc.  123.)  He,  with  his 
partner,  Hutchinson,  carried  the  express  for  Reeside  for  25  miles,  and  bore  all 
expenses  of  every  kind,  from  4th  February  to  7th  of  March,  the  day  it  stop- 
ped, and  received  therefor  $1,885  71,  which  makes  $57  93  per  day  for  25 
miles,  and  for  the  whole  route  of  90  miles,  $208  55  per  day,  and  $7,924 
90  for  the  period  of  38  days,  about  $1,000  more  than  one  half  of  the  sum 
allowed  for  this  express. 

But  this  express  was  got  up  for  a  special  purpose,  that  of  running  down 
the  private  express  established  by  Mr.  Hale,  the  editor  of  the  New  York 
Journal  of  Commerce.  That  it  did  not  beai  his  express  is  clearly  shown 
by  the  testimony  of  all  the  witnesses;  and  Mr.  Hale  testifies  that  while  his 
private  express  answered  all  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  intended,  and 
was  discontinued  only  upon  theadjournment  of  Congress,  this  express  failed 
in  numerous  instances  of  its  object,  having  arrived  but  six  times  in  ten  days 
so  as  to  get  the  intelligence  from  Washington  in  time  for  the  morning  pa- 
pers. Therefore,  as  \\\q  private  express'succeeded,  and  the  Government  ex- 
press failed  of  its  object,  and  as  their  objects  were  the  same,  the  one  being 
established  in  reference  to  the  other,  it  would  be  at  least  fair  to  say  that  the 
Government  express  which  failed,  ought  to  cost  no  more  than  the  private 
express  which  succeeded.  Mr.  Hale  exhibited  to  your  committee,  under 
oath,  a  statement  of  the  whole  cost  of  his  express,  and  it  amounted  to  $3,300. 
The  amount  paid  to  Mr.  Reeside  for  his  was  $13,600.  In  deciding  upon 
the  propriety  of  this  enormous  allowance,  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that 
Reeside  was  bound  by  his  contract  to  furnish  all  Government  ex])resses yret' 
from  charge. — See  Hale's  deposition.  Doc.  121. 

The  committee  now  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  more  parti- 
cularly to  the  manner  in  which  ihe  mail  has  been  carried  upon  this  route, 
and  the  amount  of  compensation  which  has  been  paid  for  it. 

The  contract  was  to  carry  "  ^Ae  mail'"  upon  this  route.  The  nature, 
weight,  and  extent  of  that  mail  was  perfectly  understood,  both  by  the  con- 
tractor and  the  department  when  the  contract  was  made,  and  it  embraced 
all  the  mail,  not  merely  letters,  but  newspapers,  pamphlets,  public  docu- 
ments, &.C.,  &c. ,  and  was  to  be  carried  for  §6,000  per  year. 

1.  i'he  great  mail,  as  it  is  generally  called,  has  run  pretty  regularly  at 
the  prescribed  times,  and  been  paid  for  at  the  contract  price  of  $6,600. 

2.  In  addition  to  this,  one  of  tlie  red  ink  endorsements  states,  anbther 
mail  was  ordered  from  the  beginning,  at  $1,500  per  year,  which  has  been 
regularly  paid  for.  This  is  called  the  second,  or  city  line.  It  existed  when 
the  contract  was  executed,  and  must  have  been  within  the  contemplation  of 
the  contractor  when  he  made  his  bid;  he  was  then  carrying  it,  and  made  no 
offer  for  it  as  a  separate  service.  It  was,  indeed,  but  a  part  of  the  mail  be- 
tween New  York  and  Philadelphia,  for  the  convenience  of  those  cities  alone. 
It  is  sent  at  6  o'clock  A.  M.,  in  the  steamboats,  while  they  are  running,  and 
in  its  departure  and  arrival  depends  upon  them,  and  in  stages  in  the  winter. 


73  [  98  3 

during  which  time  the  contractor  has  usually  had  three  lines  of  stages  for  pas- 
sengers between  the  two  cities;  one  of  which  started  at  six,  another  at  ten, 
and  another  at  two  o'clock;  into  the  first  of  which  lines  this  mail  is  thrown. 
Postmaster  Page  says  it  carries  the  letters  from  this  city  for  New  York  city 
alone,  and  one  of  the  clerks  says  it  is*  not  sent  in  the  winter.  This  mail 
accommodation  to  the  two  cities,  while  it  is  useful  to  the  public,  has  the  effect 
of  relieving  the  contractor  from  a  portion  of  the  weight  which  he  would 
otherwise  have  to  carry,  and  the  actual  expense  of  carrying  it  mast  be  very 
small;  it  is  but  the  weight  of  these  mail  bags  in  a  coach  or  steamboat,  which 
would  make  the  trip  at  any  rate,  and  the  weight  which  is  thrown  into  this 
is  taken  out  of  some  other  coach  or  steamboat,  for  the  whole  mail  was  by 
his  first  bid  to  be  carried  for  86,000,  One  of  the  witnesses  examined  on  this 
subject  testifies,  that  it  is  an  advantage  to  the  contractor  to  perinil  him  to 
divide  the  mail,  and  take  part  by  one  conveyance,  and  part  by  another. 
The  committee  refer  to  the  affidavits  of  James  Page,  Joseph  Benedict, 
Beekman  Potter,  Joseph  Dod,  and  George  Taber. — See  Docs.  100,  102,  103, 
97  and  124. 

3.  The  express  line  before  referred  to,  paid  for  at  the  rate  of  $3,150  per 
year,  from  1st  of  January,  1832,  to  the  1st  of  October,  1833.  On  this  line 
further  explanation  is  not  necessary,  except  to  remark,  that  we  have  not 
been  able  to  discover  by  what  line  of  stages  or  steamboats  it  was  carried,  or 
that  it  was  ever  carried  at  all. 

4.  "The  third  or  slow  line  for  bulky  matter."  This  purports  to  leave 
the  cities  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.  It  is  carried  in  steamboats  when  they  run, 
and  in  the  winter  in  a  line  of  stages  for  passengers  which  started  at  that 
hour.  Mr.  Page,  the  postmaster  at  Philadelphia,  calls  it  the  ten  o'clock, 
or  the  slow  line,  and  says  "  it  takes  all  the  periodicals  and  newspapers 
which  are  not  sent  by  the  fast  line.  He  cannot  answer  particularly  as  to 
how  it  is  carried  when  the  steamboats  do  not  run,'* 

Beekman  Potter,  speaking  with  reference  to  the  last  named  line  says: 
"  The  next  one  is  the  transportation  line,  which  carried  papers,  documents, 
&c. ;  was  irregular  in  its  time  of  applying  to  the  office  for  mail,  coming  for 
it  at  all  hours.  This  transportation  line  carried  merchandise,  and  took  two 
days  to  two  and  a  half  to  get  through;  when  the  boats  did  not  run,  this  mail 
matter  was  carried  in  wagons, 

George  Taber  .<=ays,  "  J5y  the  ten  o'clock  line  we  send  bags  containing 
documents,  newspapers,  and  all  heavy  matter  we  may  have  in  the  office 
at  that  time,  not  letters.  It  goes,  when  the  boats  run,  by  them;  when  they 
.  do  not  it  is  taken  by  the  other  lines.  We  put  on  the  fast  line  when  it  is 
starting  all  that  can  be  carried  by  it,  preferring  all  daily  papers,  and  leaving 
documents,  weekly  papers,  &c.,  which  go  by  the  way  line.  The  10  o'clock 
mail  ceases  when  the  boats  do  not  run,  so  that  when  the  boats  do  not  run 
there  are  but  two  lines. 

All  that  is  to  be  elicited  from  this  confused  jumble  of  mail  lineSy  and 
transportation  lines,  and  fast  mails  and  slow  mails,  between  these  two  cities, 
is  this;  they  have  between  those  cities  one  regular  daily  line  ivhich  runs 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  mail;  all  the  rest  of  the  lines  are  adjusted 
and  arranged  to  suit  the  convenience  of  the  contractor,  and  relieve  him  from 
a  part  of  the  weight  of  the  mail  in  his  principal  mail  line;  not  for  the  benefit 
of  the  public  so  far  as  expedition  is  concerned,  but  to  their  injury,  a  large 
10 


[  86  ]  74 

portion  of  the  mail  matter  being  sent  in  transportation  wagons  which  carry 
merchandise  from  city  to  city. 

5.  The  statement  of  the  Assistant  Postmaster  General  describes  the  pre- 
sent arrangement  of  the  mails  to  be^  "  the  great  mail;" — *'  the  2d,  or  city 
line;'^ — "  the  slow  line  for  bulky  matter;" — "  the  4th,  or  way  line,  through 
Pennsylvania  and  Jersey  towns."  The  postmaster  at  Philadelphia  also 
mentions  this  way  line  as  one  of  the  four  mails  now  running. 

The  history  of  this  "  ivay  77iail"  is  somewhat  curious.  It  means  nothing 
more  than  the  mail  for  the  several  towns  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey, 
on  the  route  betiveen  the  two  cities,  which  was  advertised  and  contracted 
for,  and  was  always  carried  with  the  great  mail,  until  the  improvetnents 
came  into  fashion  under  the  present  contractor;  now  it  has  assumed  the  im- 
portance of  a  separate  distinct  line.  It  has  been  changed  with  all  the  varia- 
tions which  suited  the  convenience  or  caprice  of  the  contractor,  and  the 
people  on  the  line  have  been  subjected  to  inconveniences  never  known  until 
these  mails  were  so  improved. — See  Doc.  101. 

While  the  great  mail  was  carried  by  land  in  the  afternoon,  this  way  mail 
was  carried  with  it,  and  regularity  existed.  It  has  since  had  various  turns 
and  transmigrations;  at  one  time  a  two  horse  coach  line  with  prolonged 
time,  not  increased  speed;  at  another,  it  was  carried  by  the  steamboats  to 
'Bristol,  and  thence  in  wagons  and  two  horse  stages  by  land;  and  recently, 
by  the  steamboats  to  Bordentown,  and  thence  to  Trenton;  of  which  latter 
change  George  Taber  says,  "I  do  not  consider  it  as  any  different  arrange- 
ment; it  is  only  dividing  the  matter;  it  however  gives  Trenton  the  accom- 
modation of  a  second  daily  mail  instead  of  one." 

An  examination  of  the  foregoing  facts  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  there 
has  been,  under  the  present  contracts  and  improvements,  but  one  regular 
and  uniform  mail,  the  great  mail  which  carries,  or  ought  to  carry  all  the 
mail  matter  from  north  to  south.  The  ''  city  mail,"  which  is  an  accommo- 
dation, and  a  very  proper  one  to  the  two  cities,  does,  during  steamboat  na- 
vigation, pass  between  the  cities  with  regularity  and  expedition;  this  does 
not  appear  to  be  the  case  during  the  suspension  of  steamboat  navigation. 
All  the  others,  with  all  their  improvements,  have  been  merely  a  division  of 
the  mail  matter,  and  a  relief  to  the  contractor,  by  permitting  him  to  send  a 
part  of  the  weight  which  he  had  to  carry,  at  one  time  by  one  of  the  lines  of 
steamboats  or  stages,  and  at  another  by  wagon,  or  the  transportation  line, 
but  all  of  them  ending  by  putting  into  his  pocket  large  sums  of  the  public 
money. 

One  of  the  principal  grounds  of  boast  in  the  improved  bid  was  the  in-' 
creased  speed;  one  of  the  professed  objects  of  all  the  movements  of  the  de- 
partment was  to  obtain  and  receive  greater  expedition.  The  committee  feel 
every  disposition  to  encourage  that  object,  and  would  be  willing  to  yield  a 
liberal  compensation  to  the  contractor  who  would  secure  it,  not  in  promises, 
but  in  performance.  They  therefore  sought  the  best  evidence  that  they 
could  obtain  on  this  point;  the  result  of  their  inquiries  is  detailed. 

The  advertisement  was  to  carry  the  mail  from  city  to  city  between  three 
P.  M.  and  six  A.  M.,  fifteen  hours.  The  contract  was  to  carry  it  for  6,000 
dollars  in  that  time;  the  improvement,  adopted  "  from  the  beginning,"  was 
to  carry  it  in  thirteen  hours,  and  expedite  it  still  more  as  the  Postmaster 
General  should  require.     The  schedule  of  the  time  of  departure  and  arriva^ 


75  [  S6  ] 

which  18  annexed  to  and  recognised  in  the  contract  as  the  rule  to  which  the 
contractor  is  to  submit,  prescribes  thirteen  hours  for  the  ivinter  arrange- 
ment, from  the  1st  of  January,  18S3,  for  the  principal  line,  the  extra  line, 
and  the  summer  arrangement,  and  eleven  and  twelve  hours  for  ''  the  express 
line  for  the  winter  only."  The  statement  by  the  Assistant  Postmaster  Ge- 
neral gives,  for  the  early  part  of  the  contract,  "  the  great  mail  line"  in  fif- 
teen hours;  *'  the  city  line"  (by  the  steamboats)  in  twelve  hours;  <'the  ex- 
press line,"  during  the  session  of  Congress  and  suspension  of  steamboat 
navigation,  twelve  hours.  In  the  summer  arrangement  of  1832,  the  "great 
mail  line"  thirteen  hours;  the  second,  or '•  city  line,"  twelve  hours;  the 
way  mail,  through  "Pennsylvania  and  Jersey  towns,"  in  the  summer  of 
1S33,  from  six  A.  M.  one  day,  to  eleven  A.M.  next  day,  seventeen  hours. 
And  the  present  arrangement  of  what  he  calls  the  four  lines,  as  follows: 
great  mail  line  from  eleven  to  thirteen  hours;  the  slow  line,  or  "  bulky  mat- 
ter," twenty-four  hours;  the  way  line,  for  "Pennsylvania  and  Jersey 
towns,"  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  twenty-three  hours;  from  New 
York  to  Philadelphia  twenty  hours;  and  the  second,  or  "city  line,"  (by 
steamboats)  eight  hours. 

By  a  third  endorsement  in  red  ink  on  the  schedule  of  the  14th  May 
1832,  the  contractor  was  directed  to  arrive  at  New  York  from  Philadelphia 
by  8  A.  M.;  which,  if  it  apply  to  any  of  the  mails  set  out  in  the  schedule, 
is  an  extension  of  two  hours  of  the  time  in  the  contract,  giving  fifteen  hours, 
and  taking  away  the  most  substantial  promise  of  the  bid.  Indeed,  it  takes  away 
the  onlyji-emaining  improvement  on  this  route;  for  the  committee  have  already 
shown  that  he  has  been  most  liberally  paid  for  his  expresses,  guards,  &c. 
But  this  extension  is  not  all;  there  is  another  red  ink  endorsement  on  the 
schedule,  which  extends  the  time  not  only  beyond  the  promised  improve- 
ment, but  beyond  even  the  advertisement  and  the  contract,  and  the  schedule; 
it  is  in  these  words:  "25th  February,  1833.  It  is  understood  that  the  contrac- 
tor is  to  be  allowed  sixteen  hours  during  the  winter  arrangement."  Thus  it 
appears  that  so  far  as  the  department  and  the  contractor  are  concerned  in  the 
written  evidence  on  the  records,  the  increased  expedition  has  been  from  the  be- 
ginning, little  more  than  pretence;  during  the  season  of  transportation  by 
steamboat  and  railroad  the  mail  does  necessarily,  and  as  a  matter  of 
course,  make  its  way  from  city  to  city  with  the  same  speed  that  every  thing 
else  goes  the  same  road,  and  the  contractors  could  not  delay  it  without  in- 
curring additional  expense  in  doing  so. 

The  execution  but  too  truly  corresponds  with  the  written  evidence;  your 
committee  could  nowhere  hear  of  the  express  line;  they  can  therefore  give 
no  account  of  its  speed,  but  from  the  statement  of  the  Assistant  Postmaster 
General,  of  what  it  ought  to  be. 

James  Page,  postmaster  at  Philadelphia,  swears:  "I  should  say  that  the 
6  o'clock  city  line  and  way  line  arrive  together,  from  3  to  5  o'clock  P.  M. ; 
the  10  o'clock  slow  line  about  10  next  day;  and  the  fast  line  from  about 
half  past  3  to  5  on  the  morning  of  the  next  day.  That  is,  as  near  as  may  be, 
the  time  of  the  arrival  of  those  mails." 

George  Taber  swears;  "At  6  in  the  morning  we  send  the  way  mail  and 
New  York  city  mail  together.  These  mails  leave  at  6  o'clock,  A.  M.  The 
"way  mail"  is  allowed,  I  think,  thirty-six  hours  to  go  through,  and  when 
the  steamboats  do  not  run,  the  New  York  city  mail  takes  the  same  time." 
The  other  lines  he  describes  as  they  have  before  been  mentioned. 


[  86  ]  76 

Joseph  Benedict,   in   answer  to  the  question,   "Has  there  been  any  in 
creased  expedition  in  the  conveyance  of  the  mails  between  Philadelphia  and 
New  York  for  the  last  two  years,  except  the  express  horse  mail?"  answered, 
*'  We  have  received  the  mails,  I  think,  at  the  same  time  throughout  the  two 
years." 

The  committee  were  aware,  from  the  evidence  before  them,  that  the  mails 
have  for  some  time  past  been  principally  carried  in  steamboats,  on  the  rail- 
road by  two  horse  coaches,  and  in  wagons.  They  were,  therefore,  desirous 
to  ascertain  the  exact  amount  which  Mr.  Reeside  pays  for  their  trans- 
portation, in  order  that  the}'-  might  compare  that  amount  with  the  sums  re- 
ceived from  the  department,  and  exhibit  the  clear  profits  which  he  is  enabled 
to  receive  from  his  contracts  and  improvements.  They  have  not  been  able 
to  obtain  such  information  on  this  poinfas  to  justify  them  in  presenting  the 
result  to  the  Senate,  and  must,  therefore,  omit  this  statement.  They  will 
close  what  they  have  to  say,  by  exhibiting,  in  detail,  the  sums  paid  to  the 
contractor  for  carrying  the  mail  on  this  route,  from  1st  of  January,  1832,  to 
the  1st  of  July,  1834. 

1st  January,  1833.  Great  mail  -  _  - 

Increased  service         -  .  - 

Second  mail,  or  city  line 
Express  mail 
Penalties  $1,090.    Extra  teams  for  detention,  &c. 

Carrying  mail  bags      -  -         .    - 

Four  trips  with  southern  mail,  &c. 
Passage  of  mail  guards 
1st  April,  1833.       For  three  mails,  and  increased  service 
1st  July,  1833.        For  do  do 

1st  October,  1833.  For  do  do 

1st  January,  1834.  Mails  and  increased  service 

Second  weekly  mail  during  winter 
Rufining   through  in  twelve  hours,  and 
carrying  an  additional  way  mail,  from 
1st  May,  1833, 
1st  April,  1834.      Mails,  &c.  - 

Running  through  in  twelve  hours,  and 

additional  way  mail 
Horse  express  _  -  _ 

1st  July,  1834.  Do  -  -  -  - 

Penalties  ^600  Express  stage  mail  between  New  York 
and  Philadelphia  from  25th  April  to 
30th  September,  1833,  -  -  1,367  31 

One  additional  month's  pay  for  discon- 
tinuing same  -  _  -  262  50 

Thus  it  appears,  there  has  been  paid  to  this  contractor  -  $84,372  17 
for  carrying  the  mails  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia  in  two  years  and 
an  half,  being  at  the  rate  of  $33,748  86  per  year. 

During  the  same  period,  he  had  gl,690  remitted  to  him  for  penalties 
■which  he  had  incurred  for  failures  in  complying  with  his  contract.  What 
proportion  of  them  are  upon  this  route,  the  committee  are  unable  to  state; 


$6,000 

00 

13,000 

00 

1,500 

00 

3,150 

00 

3,000 

00 

520 

00 

600 

00 

2,196 

00 

5,912 

50 

5,912 

50 

5,912 

50 

4,750 

00 

375 

00 

3,421 

36 

5,125 

00 

1,281 

25 

13,680 

00 

6,406 

25 

.'iiw 


77  [  86  ] 

hut  they  are  entered  at  those  periods  'when  large  balances  are  to  be  cancel- 
led; $1,090  were  remitted  on  \st  January,  1833,  and  $600  on  1st  July, 
1834;  and  both  sums  follow,  in  his  accounts,  the  items  of  charge  for  this 
route  on  those  days. 

It  ought  also  to  be  observed  that  the  enormous  sums  credited  on  this  route, 
except  the  last,  appear  by  the  account  itself  to  have  been  made  when  he 
was  greatly  indebted  to  the  department  for  advances  which  had  been  made 
to  him. 

There  is  one  other  circumstance  apparent  upon  the  face  of  this  account 
which  ought  not  to  pass  unobserved.  The  express  mail,  which  was  autho- 
rized by  one  of  the  endorsements  on  the  contract,  is  charged  for  from  the 
beginning  at  g3, 150.  By  the  entry  at  foot  of  contract,  bearing  date  25th 
April,  1833,  a  new  arrangement  of  mails  was  made,  at  a  compensation  of 
S5,125.  By  another  entry,  at  the  same  place,  dated  \9th  November,  1833, 
it  is  stated  that  the  '*  express  mail  was  dispensed  with  by  arrangement  made 
25th  of  April,  1833,  allowance  of  S3,150  to  cease  from  the  day  of  25th 
April,  1833." 

Mr.  Hobbie,  in  his  statement  respecting  the  mails,  says  that  the  express 
mail  was  dispensed  with  by  the  new  arrangement,  which  went  into  effect  on 
the  1st  of  May,  1833. 

It  is  thus  established  that  this  express  mail,  if  there  ever  were  such  a  mail, 
ceased  either  on  the  25lh  of  April,  1833,  or  on  the  1st  of  May,  1833.  Now 
in  the  account  it  appears  that  it  is  charged  for,  not  up  to  the  25th  of  April 
or  1st  of  May,  1833,  but  up  to  1*^  of  October,  1833,  five  months  after  it 
stopped.  It  further  appears  by  the  account  under  date  of  1st  of  July,  1834, 
that  he  was  then  allowed  for  this  express  mail  from  25th  April  to  30th  Sep- 
tember, 1833.  Thus  he  has  been  twice  paid  for  this  mail  for  five  months 
after  it  is  said  to  have  stopped,  for  it  is  proper  again  to  observe  that  your 
committee  cannot  find  that  it  ever  ran  at  alt. 

Nor  is  this  all;  on  the  1st  of  January,  1834,  this  contractor  is  credited 
with  the  new  arrangement  from  1st  of  May,  1833,  $3,421  36.  So  that  he 
has  received  twice  over  for  the  express  mail  for  five  months,  when  it  did  not 
run,  and  during  the  same  five  months  received  extra  pay  for  the  new  ar- 
rangement; and  by  this  allowance  and  by  like  allowances  above  examined, 
are  balanced  the  very  large  advances  of  public  money  made  by  the  officers 
of  the  department  to  this  contractor. 

In  the  account  of  James  Keeside,  furnished  by  the  Postmaster  General  to 
your  committee,  is  an  entry  of  the  following  tenor:  "1829,  March  13,  an 
additional  allowance  for  expediting  mail  between  New  York  and  Philadel- 
phia two  hours  and  a  half,  by  direction  of  the  Postmaster  General  per  letter 
21st  May,  ^28,  for  five  months  and  twenty  days,  $2,361    11." 

This  allowance,  which  was  made  before  the  present  Postmaster  General 
came  into  office,  rests  upon  the  following  facts.  On  the  21st  of  May,  1828, 
Phineas  Bradley,  (see  Doc.  125,)  then  Assistant  Postmaster  General,  wrote  to 
James  Reeside,  instructing  him  so  to  increase  his  speed  between  New  York 
and  Philadelphia  as  to  run  through  in  IH  hours  instead  of  14  hours,  the  time 
allowed  by  contract.  And  in  the  winter  of  1829  Mr.  Reeside  presented  an 
account  of  these  services  for  five  months  and  twenty  days,  amounting  to  the 
above  named  sum,  whicTi  was  allowed  by  the  Postmaster  General. 

It  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  account  presented  by  Reeside  that  the  increased 


[  86  ]  78 

speed  was  kept  up  for  no  more  than  five  months  and  twenty  days,  and 
then  went  on  as  required  by  contract,  for  if  it  had  been  a  continuing  service 
he  would  have  charged  for  more  than  five  months  and  twenty  days  from  the 
21st  of  May  to  the  1st  of  January,  up  to  which  time  the  amount  of  his  allow- 
ance would  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things  have  been  computed.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  extra  service  and  the  extra  allowance  had  ceased 
from  about  the  lOih  of  November,  1S2S. 

The  account  of  Reeside  for  the  two  last  quarters  in  1S2S,  (see  Doc.  126.)  and 
the  two  first  quarters  in  lS29,is  credited  with  transportation  fro.Ti  Philadelphia 
to  New  York,  an  additional  allowance  per  quarter  3,350  dollars,  which  sum 
does  not  include  the  increased  speed  above  particularly  noticed.  But  under 
date  of  the  1st  of  October,  1829,  there  is  in  his  account  the  following  credit: 

*' 1829,  October  ],  By  expediting  mail  Philadelphia  to  New 
York  city  from  1st  January  to  1st  July, 
1829,  -  -  -  -         $3,000  00 

Same  date.         Philadelphia  to  New  York  city,  additional 

allowance  and  expediting  mail  -         $5,350  00 

instead  of  $3,350,  the  quarterly  allowance  as  it  had  before  stood,  making  an 
advance  upon  it  of  $2,000.  The  next  quarter  this  transportation  is  credited 
at  $4,350,  making  an  advance  of  but  $1,000,  and  it  is  continued  during  the 
rest  of  the  contract  alternately,  the  two  winter  quarters  at  4, 350  dollars  each, 
and  the  two  summer  quarters  at  5,350  dollars  each;  making  an  advance  upon 
the  contract  since  January  1st,  1S29,  of  6,000  dollars  a  year,  amounting  in 
the  three  years  to  $18,000.  Your  committee  called  for  an  account  of  this  al- 
lowance, and  received  the  following  copy  of  a  letter  explanatory  thereof: 

Post  Office  Department,  ^th  Oct.^  1829. 

Sir:  From  a  strict  examination  of  the  documents,  a  testimony  of  the  ex- 
tra expense  incurred  by  you  on  route  No.  231,  from  Philadelphia  to  New 
York,  in  so  expediting  the  mail  as  to  carry  it  through  both  ways  in  II5 
hours  instead  of  14  hours,  including  the  expense  of  crossing  the  Hudson  in 
the  night,  it  appears  that  the  sum  of  6,000  dollars  a  year  will  nearly  cover 
it,  viz.:  2,000'dollars  from  October  1st  to  April  1st,  and  4,000  dollars  from 
April  1st  to  October  1st.  The  great  importance  of  keeping  up  this  expedi- 
tion inclines  the  Postmaster  General  to  continue  the  arrangement  made  by 
his  predecessor,  and  to  sanction  the  allowance.  He  therefore  instructs  me 
to  inform  you  that  your  additional  allowance  will  be  for  the  first  and  last 
quarter  in  each  year  1,000  dollars  per  quarter;  and  for  the  second  and  third 
quarter  in  each  year  2,000  dollars  per  quarter;  to  commence  with  the  first 
of  the  present  year.  This  is  nearly  equal  to  the  rate  allowed  for  similar  ser- 
vices during  a  part  of  last  year.  The  allowance  will  cease  if  the  increased 
expedition  shall  at  any  time  be  discontinued. 

(Signed)  0.  B.  BROWN. 

James  Reeside,  Esq.,  Present. 

I  certify  the  above  to  be  a  true  copy  from  letter  book  No.  2. 
(Signed)  A.  NELSON, 

Principal  Clerk,, Nor  them  Division. 


79  [   86  ] 

It  is  worthy  a  passing  notice  that  Mr.  Brown,  in  this  letter,  which  seems 
to  have  been  intended  for  the  inspection  of  others  besides  Reeside,  says  in 
reference  to  the  allowance  noticed  in  it,  that  it  was  '■'■  nearly  equal  to  the 
ratio  allowed  for  similar  services  during  a  part  of  last  year ;^'  thus  con- 
veying the  idea  that  the  allowance  was  a  little  heloiu  that  ratio.  The  allow- 
ance ^'during;  part  oflast  year"  referred  to,  was,  as  stated  above,  $2,361  11, 
for  five  months  and  twenty  days,  or  173  days.  This  allowance,  which  is 
said  to  be  nearly  in  an  equal  ratio,  is  $6,000  for  one  year,  or  365  days.  Now 
if  173  days  give  $2,361  11,  365  days  will,  by  the  same  proportion,  give 
$5,039  33.  So  that  this  allowance  in  fact  exceeds  the  ratio  allowed  for 
similar  services  during  a  part  of  (the  then)  last  year,  by  S960  67  a  year, 
equal  in  3  years  to  $2,SS2  01. 

There  was  not  presented  to  your  committee,  in  answer  to  their  call,  any 
order  of  the  department  for  running  at  the  same  speed  on  this  route  from 
January  I,  1829,  to  October  1  of  the  same  year;  that  it  did  run  from  May 
21  to  November  11,  182S,  as  above  shown;  that  is,  through  from  Phila- 
delphia to  New  York  in  \\\  hours.  The  letter  of  October  9,  1S29,  above 
set  out,  contains  instructions  to  run  thereafter  at  the  same  speed,  and  it  re- 
fers to  documents  and  evidence  showing  the  expense  incurred  by  increased 
speed  theretofore;  but  on  a  special  requisition  for  the  documents  and  evi- 
dence referred  to  in  that  letter,  there  are  none  to  he  found  which  apply  to 
the  time  in  question,  or  which  go  to  show  that  the  mail  was  carried  through 
from  city  to  city  in  less  than  the  original  contract  time,  from  the  1st  Janu- 
ary to  the  1st  October,  1S29.  The  allowance,  therefore,  of  three  thousand 
dollars  from  the  1st  January  to  the  1st  July,  1S29,  for  increased  speed,  and 
of  two  thousand  dollars  from  the  1st  July  to  the  1st  October,  being  an  extra 
of  five  thousand  dollars  for  nine  months,  was  founded  upon  no  previous  order 
of  the  department  for  such  service,  and  upon  no  evidence  showing  that 
such  service  had  been  rendered. 

The  letter  of  October  9,  1829,  contains  an  order  for  the  continuance  of 
the  arrangement  made  by  the  predecessor  of  the  present  Postmaster  Ge- 
neral, and  for  running  through  from  city  to  city  in  111  hours;  and  fixes  the 
price  at  $6,000  a  year  for  the  extra  service;  which  sum  continued  to  be  paid 
until  the  1st  January,  1S32.  But  your  committee  find,  on  inquiry,  thai  this 
extra  service  ivas  not  rendered. 

Notwithstanding  this  allowance  of  $18,000,  entered  to  the  credit  of  James 
Reeside,  on  the  1st  October,  1829,  and  between  that  day  and  the  1st  Janu- 
ary, 1832,  inclusive,  there  was  at  the  last  named  date  a  balance  against  him 
on  the  books  of  the  department,  of  S7,751  13.  This  sum  is  "nearly  liqui- 
dated by  tivo  credits  of  a  very  extraordinary  charactei',  which  were  made  to 
him  upon  the  books  just  at  the  close  of  the  quarter.  The  first  is  as  follows: 
"  1832,  March  31  Extra  expense  incurred  in  keeping  two  extra  teams 
between  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  in  consequence  of  frequent  detention  of 
the  mail  at  New  York,  from  one  to  two  hours,  waiting  for  the  distribution  of 
foreign  mails,  they  frequently  arriving  just  before  the  departure  of  the  stage, 
for  three  years,  from  1st  January,  1S29,  to  31st  Dec,  1831,  gi4,500," — See 
Doc.  126. 

The  following  is  the  account  given  of  this  allowance  by  the  Postmaster 
General,  in  his  letter  to  the  Senate  of  the  3d  March,  1834;  pages  238-9: 

"  James  Reeside  was  the  contractor  for  carrying  the  mail,  daily,  between 
Philadelphia  and  New  York,  at  an  annual  compensation  of  ten  thousand  nine 


C  86  3  80 

hundred  dollars,  from  Ist  January,  1828,  to  31st  December,  1831;  also  twice 
a  day  from  1st  January  1832,  at  twenty  thousand  five  hundred  dollars  per 
annum. 

<'0n  this  route  it  was  found  that  very  frequently  a  packet  from  a  foreign 
port  would  arrive  at  New  York  just  as  the  mail  was  about  to  depart  for 
Philadelphia,  with  thousands  of  letters  containing  commercial  intelligence  of 
the  most  interesting  nature  to  all  the  different  mercantile  towns  in  the  union. 

"  The  delay  of  these  letters  for  the  south  would  have  a  most  injurious 
effect  upon  all  the  southern  merchants,  and  others  interested  in  the  foreign 
market,  and  not  unfrequently  would  it  subject  them  to  heavy  losses,  by 
earlier  and  secret  information  being  sent  on  to  special  agents  by  express. 
To  prevent  these  evils  the  contractor  was  instructed,  in  all  such  cases,  to 
delay  his  departure  from  New  York  till  such  letters  could  be  distributed 
and  mailed  for  the  south,  and  then  to  supply  such  additional  stock  as  to  run 
through  in  time  to  perfect  the  connection  with  other  mails  at  Philadelphia. 
The  delays  were  proven  to  be  from  one  to  two  hours;  and  testimony  was 
furnished  to  show  that  the  contractor  was  compelled,  by  the  fulfilment 
of  this  order,  to  keep  in  continual  readiness  on  the  road,  two  extra  four- 
horse  teams,  with  their  drivers. 

"  The  expense  for  the  increased  expedition  on  the  route  for  but  half  the 
year  1828,  had  been  two  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty  one  dollars  and 
eleven  cents;  and  to  save  this  expense  during  the  subsequent  periods,  which 
would  have  amounted  to  more  than  four  thousand  six  hundred  dollars  a  year, 
the  direction  was  given  as  above  stated;  and  for  the  expense  to  which  it  sub- 
jected the  contractor,  he  was  allowed  from  1st  January,  1829,  to  31st  De- 
cember, 183l,attheannual  rateof  Sl,500  00." 

Thus,  the  Postmaster  General  having  considerably  increaseB  the  rate  of 
allowance  made  by  his  predecessor  for  increased  speed,  and  having  continu- 
ed the  allowance  so  increased  during  the  whole  term  of  the  contract,  with- 
out requiring  any  part  of  the  increased  service  for  which  it  was  first  allowed 
to  be  performed — does,  some  three  months  alter  the  contract  is  ended,  make 
the  additional  extra  allowance  of  4,500  dollars;  and  the  object  of  making 
it  is,  as  he  says,  "  to  save  this  expense  during  the  subsequent  periods.^^ 

The  second  item  of  the  same  date  is  as  follows  :  "  Carrying  from  Phila- 
delphia to  New  York  city  all  the  large  mail  bags  intended  for  use  in  the  State 
of  New  York,  averaging  five  hundred  pounds  per  week  for  the  same  pe- 
riod, SI, 560  00."— See  Doc.  126. 

Your  committee  are  by  no  means  satisfied  that  this  very  unusual  allowance 
is  correct.  They  could  find  no  vouchers  or  evidence  to  show  that  the  weight 
of  mall  bags  here  charged  was  transported  between  those  two  cities;  and  the 
sum  allowed  is  about  three  times  the  value  of  the  transportation,  even  if  the 
weight  charged  were  actually  carried. 

The  whole  amount  of  payments  whifh  have  been  made  to  James  Reeside 
since  the  1st  of  April,  1829,  for  services  which  he  did  not  render,  and  the 
excess  of  pay  beyond  the  amount  which  the  law  would  warrant  for  ser- 
vices which  he  did  render,  does,  according  to  the  bes:  estimate  which 
your  committee  can  make  upon  all  the  evidence  before  them,  exceed  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars. 

Pecuniary  Transactions  between  P.  M.  General  and  Reeside. 
Your  committee  would  again  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  certain 


81  [  86  ] 

pecuniary  transactions  befwnpn  thn  Postmaster  General  and  James  Reeside  ' 
and  also  between  Obadiah  E.  Brown  and  Reeside  and  SlaymakeY,  noticed  in 
pages  14  and  15  of  their  former  report.  The  first  named  case  is  stated  in 
the  following  words: 

"  It  also  appears  that,  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  1  S3 1,  Mr.  Barry  ap- 
plied to  Reeside,  in  Philadelphia,  to  assist  liim  in  negotiating  an  acceptance 
for  $1,000,  to  raise  some  money  for  his  (Barry's)  individual  use.  Instead 
of  doing  this,  Reeside  advanced  him  the  SI, 000;  and  he  stated  before  the 
committee  that  Mr.  Barry  paid  it  by  his  acceptance  at  a  short  date,  which  he 
(Reeside)  negotiated  in  tiie  Schuylkill  Bank.  On  inquiry  of  the  cashier  of 
the  Schuylkill  Bank,  we  were  informed  that  no  such  acceptance  was  nego- 
tiated there." 

The  very  large  amount  of  the  extra  allowances  made  to  Reeside  and  some 
other  individuals,  gave,  in  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  strong  ground 
for  the  opinion,  that  a  portion  of  those  allowances  were  used  for  secret  pur- 
poses, or  that  they  were  shared  by  individuals  having  authority  or  influence 
in  granting  them."  Hence  they  felt  it  their  duty  scrupulously  to  examine  the 
pecuniary  transactions  of  those  principal  contractors  with  the  officers  of  the 
department.  Reeside,  in  his  testimony  taken  on  the  21st  of  May,  1834,  in 
part  of  his  answer  to  the  inquiry,  whether  at  any  time  he  gave,  handed  over, 
or  lent  any  sum  of  mone}^  to  any  officer  of  the  Post  Office  Department,  says: 
"  Another  instance  in  which  1  lent  money  was  when  Major  Barry  was  in 
Philadelphia,  about  three  years  ago,  and  was  about  to  bring  away  his  familv 
and  his  sick  son,  who  had  been  under  Doctor  Physic,  at  an  earlier  period  than 
he  had  intended.  He  applied  to  me  to  know  if  I  could  not  get  him  an  ac- 
ceptance for  S  1,000  negotiated,  to  enable  him  to  bring  his  family  home.  I  told 
him  I  could  loan  him  ^1,000,  which  I  did,  and  he  gave  me  his  acceptance  for 
that  amount  at  a  short  date,  probably  at  30  days.  It  was  negotiated  at  the 
Schuylkill  Bank,  and  paid  at  maturity."  Your  committee  thei-eupon  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  the  cashier  of  the  Schuylkill  Bank,  inquiring  whether, 
such  draft  had  been  negotiated  there,  and  received  for  answer  that  it  had 
not.  The  first  letter  not  having  described  the  instrument  according  to  the 
description  of  it  given  by  the  witness,  and  this  being  discovered,  a  second 
letter  was  written,  correcting  the  error,  to  whicb  also  an  answer  was  re- 
ceived to  the  same  effect.  Under  these  circumstances,  your  committee  re- 
ferred to  the  evidence  as  it  then  stood,  and  left  it  without  comment.  But 
subsequently  to  tlie  presentation  of  that  report,  information  entirely  satis- 
factory has  been  received  from  the  cashier  of  that  bank,  and  from  other 
source?,  that  such  a  draft  as  was  described  by  Reeside  had  been  negotiated 
in  that  bank  some  six  months  before  the  supposed  date,  but  payable  at 
ninety  instead  of  thirty  days.  Your  committee  have  no  doubt  that  it  is 
the  same  draft  mentioned  in  the  testimony  of  Reeside;  and  they  now  refer 
to  this  additional  evidence,  for  "the  purpose  of'  correcting  any  erroneous  in- 
ferences which  may  have  been  drawn  from  the  state  of  thn  proof  as  it  exist- 
ed at  the  close  of  their  former  investigation. 

Pecuniary  Transactions  between  0.  B.  Brown  and  Reeside  and 

Slaymaker. 
The  pecuniary  transactions  of  Obadiah  B.  Brown,  chief  clerk  of  the  de- 
partment, with  Reeside  and  Slaymaker,  were  considered  by  your  committee 
in  connection  with  the  extra  allowance  of  $10,000  a  year   to  those  con- 
tractors, for  carrying  the  newspapers  in  the  rapid  line  between  Philadelphia 
11 


[86]  82 

and  Pittsburgh.      It.  is  set  forth  in  the  former  report,   pages  14  and  15,  in 
the  following  words: 

'<  Some  lime  in  the  year  1832,  0.  B.  Brown  applied  to  Slaymaker  for  a 
small  loan  of  money,  (S300,)  which  Slaymaker  accordingly  lent  him,  but 
took  no  note,  and  made  no  memorandum  of  the  transaction,  ivhich  took  place 
in  the  presence  of  no  one  but  themselves.  At  another  time,  Mr.  Brown 
asked  Slaymaker  if  he  could  lend  him  three  thousand  dollars,  at  the  usual 
rate  of  interest.  This  also  was  pi-omised;  and  some  time  after,  about 
the  first  of  Januaiy,  1S33,  Mr.  Brown  renewed  his  request,  and  said  he  had 
made  a  purchase  of  the  property  oi  Doctor  Temjjh  on  the  faith  of  the  pro- 
mised loan.  The  witness  stated  before  the  committee  that,  at  that  time,  he 
had  not  the  required  sum  of  money  at  command,  but  undertook  to  raise  it, 
and  did  raise  it  by  means  of  drafts.  These  drafts  were  two  in  number,  for 
fifteen  hundred  dollars  each,  drawn  by  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker  on  0.  B. 
Brown,  and  endorsed  by  James  Reeside,  and  payable  at  ninety  days'  date. 
They  were  negotiated  at  the  Western  Bank  in  Philadelphia,  and  tent  to  the 
Patriotic  Bank  in  Washington  city  for  collection.  They  were  paid  at  ma- 
turity by  the  proceeds  of  a  draft  drawn  by  James  Reeside  on  0,  B.  Brown 
for  three  thousand  dollars,  at  ninety  da3's.  This  draft  was  suffered  to  pass 
a  day  or  two  beyond  its  maturity  without  payment;  but  on  the  15th  of  * 
July  it  was  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of  a  draft  drawn  by  Samuel  R.  Slay- 
maker on  James  Reeside  for  two  thousand  dollars,  and  one  thousand  dol-  ^ 
lars  in  cash  paid  by  Shiymaker;  and  0.  B.  Brown  at  the  same  time  drew 
on  Reeside  for  two  thousand  dollars,  which  drafts  were  sent  to  the  Hank  of 
Maryland  for  collection.  It  appears  that  neither  Reeside  nor  Slaymaker 
made  any  charge,  or  kept  any  memoranda  of  these  transactions;  that  they 
have  no  note  or  acknowledgment  of  Brown,  showing  his  liability  to  them, 
unless  it  be  the  drafts  which  were  taken  up,  which  Slaymaker  says  Z'e  thinks 
he  preserved,  but  of  which  he  does  not  j)rofess  to  be  certain.  He  neverthe- 
less denies  absolutely  that  it  was  iutended  as  a  douceur  or  gratuity  to  Brown. 
Reeside  states  that  Brown  paid  him  one  thousand  dollars  in  part  of  this 
loan.  But  this  transaction  is'the  more  remarkable  when  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  another  testified  to  by  Edwin  Porter,  which  will  be  found  in 
another  part  of  this  report." 

Tiie  transaction  between  Brown  and  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  remains,  as  fur 
as  your  committee  are  informed,  precisely  as  it  did  at  the  close  of  their  ex- 
amination of  that  subject  in  May  last.-  Slaymaker,  in  his  evidence  taken 
before  the  committee  on  the  17th  instant,  sa3's  that  he  has  seen  no  note,  or 
memorandum,  or  other  entry,  of  the  loans  made  by  him  to  Mr.  Brown,  among 
his  books  or  napers,  and  that  no  part  of  this  loan  had  been  yet  repaid  to  him. 

Pecuniary  Transactions  eetwkzn  0.  B.  Brown  and  Edwin  Portkr. 

The  state  of  the  case,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  supposed  loans  to  Edwin 
Porter,  is  materially  changed.  It  appears  by  the  testimony  of  Porter,  (See 
Document  No.  127,)  who  was  again  and  more  particularly  examined,  that 
these  loans  were,  in  fact,  investments  of  money  in  companies  Ituving  large 
post  office  contracts,  on  one  of  which  there  was  one  hundred  and  fifty  fail- 
ures in  a  single  year,  and  no  penalties  enforced,  and  in  the  other  a  large 
extra  allowance;  the  application  for  which  seems  to  have  passed  through 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Brown,  and  the  allowance  was  by  him,  as  a  confidential 
oflficer,  obtained  of  the  Postmaster  General. 


83  [  86  ] 

Brown,  upon  his  examination,  admits  that  he  had  for  some  time  an  in- 
terest in  those  mail  contracts;  or  rather,  tliat  he  made  an  investment,  or  ad- 
vance of  money  to  Mr.  Porter,  under  the  agreement  that  he  should  have  the 
right  lo  elect  whether  he  would  have  an  interest  in  the  contracts,  or  whether 
tile  money  should  be  considered  as  a  loan  at  legal  interest.  (See  Doc.  No. 
P6.)  He  admits  also  that  he  received  §1,000  for  the  use  of  S4,50Q  for  one 
year,  which  is  S730  more  than  the  legal  interest  on  that  sum.  He  further 
alleged  that  the  money  first  advanced,  being  S3, 500,  belonged  to  his  stepson. 
Doctor  Jackson;  and  that  the  second  sum,  of  S4,500,  belonged  to  the  heirs 
of  Doctor  Jackson,  then  deceased.  It  appears  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of 
these  witnesses,  that  the  transactions  were  closed  some  time  in  the  fall  of 
1833;  that  Brown  withdrew  from  the  partnership,  and  Porter  gave  his  notes 
for  the  original  sums  advanced — the  first,  for  S3, 500,  was  dated  back  to  the 
I3th  January,  1S3S;  and  the  second,  S4,500,  was  dated  the  1st  November, 
1833.  Both  the  notes  were  taken  by  Mr,  Brown  in  his  own  name,  and 
neither  the  names  of  Doctor  Jackson,  or  that  of  his  widow  or  heirs,  appear 
in  the  transaction. 

Brown  slated  upon  his  examination  that,  in  August,  1831,  he  had  in  his 
1  lands  of  the  money  of  Doctor  Jackson  upwards  of  §4,000;  and  on  being 
asked  whether  he  had  any  entr}'  in  any  book,  or  any  writing  showing  the 
amount  of  Doctor  Jackson's  money  in  his  hands,  he  says: 

"Doctor  Jackson's  accounts  and  mine  were  between  ourselves,  and  he 
had  in  his  hands  my  written  acknowledgement  of  it. "  And  added,  in  answer 
to  other  inquiries,  that  it  was  in  the  custody  of  Doctor  Jackson's  widow, 
and  that  he  presumed  she  would  let  him  see  it  if  he  desired  it.  And  being 
further  asked  whether  he  had  any  written  entry,  made  at  the  time  of  the 
receipt  of  the  $1,000  of  Porter,  showing  that  it  was  received  for  the  heirs 
of  Doctor  Jackson,  he  says:  '•'  I  keep  no  book  of  accounts.  I  made  a  me- 
morandum of  it  on  a  loose  piece  of  paper,  and  I  presume  I  can  find  it,  if  I 
have  not  handed  it  over  to  Mrs.  Jackson," 

At  this  point  the  committee  suspended  further  examination,  and  directed 
the  witness  to  produce  by  the  next  morning  all  original  entries,  papers,  or 
documents  relating  to  the  above  transaction.  Th,e  next  morning  the  wit- 
ness again  appeared,  and  produced  a  paper  which  he  said  was  a  true  copy 
of  an  original  paper  in  possession  of  Mrs.  Jackson,  which  the  committee 
refused  to  receive  as  a  compliance  v.'ith  their  order,  and  directed  the  witness 
to  produce  the  original.  He  left  the  room,  and  in  a  short  time  returned 
with  a  paper,  which  he  said  was  the  original;  but,  on  further  examination, 
admitted  that  he  had  made  it  out  the  evening  before,  oflcr  the  order  of  the 
committee  ivasput  into  his  hands:  Your  committee  could  j)laee  but  little 
ooniidence  in  a  paper  which  made  its  appearance  under  such  circumstances; 
they  nevertheless  noted  its  contents,  and  continued  their  examination  of  the 
witness,  with  the  paper  as  a  subject  of  reference. — See  Due.  96,  Ans.  26. 

From  that  he  stated,  that  in  1S31  he  had  in  his  hands,  of  the  money  of 
Doctor  Jackson^  $4,66S  30;  that  in  1832  he  had  in  his  liands  cash  which 
had  been  paid  him  by  Doctor  and  Mrs.  Jackson,  $5,280  30;  and  that  he  had 
notes  belonging  to  the  estate  of  Doctor  Jackson,  to  the  amount  of  $3,  111  70, 
on  which  he  had  received  about  $300.  The  notes  were  not  endorsed  to 
him,  but  were  in  the  name  of  Doctor  Jackson.  According  to  this  statement, 
the  utmost  amount  of  money  which  he  had  of  Doctor  Jackson  in  his  hands 
was  1^5,580  30;  and  of  this  he  has  $?;,000— being  $3,479  70  more  than  the 


[  86    ]  84 

whole  sum — at  once  invested  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Porter,  in  a  species  of 
venture  in  which  no  guardian  would  be  at  all  justifiable  in  placing  the  funds 
of  his  ward. 

liut  it  is  believed  that  the  name  of  Dr.  Jackson  and  the  heirs  of  Dr.  Jack- 
son were  but  a  cover  for  those  transactions,  intended  to  avoid  public  scruti- 
ny, and  evade  the  provisions  of  the  law,  which  prohibits  any  clerk  in  any 
post  office  from  having  an  interest  in  any  mail  contract.  The  character  of 
this  transaction  will  be  duly  appreciated  by  the  Senate. — See  Doc.  No.  133. 

'     0.  B.  Brown's  Deposite  in  the  Bank  of  Maryland. 

It  appears,  also,  by  the  testimony  of  John  B.  Morrie,  (see  Document  No. 
12S,)  that,  on  the  3d  day  of  May,  1S33,  0.  B.  Brown  deposited  in  the  Bank 
ot  Maryland,  at  Baltimore,  the  sum  of  $2,000,  and  took  a  certificate  for  the 
same,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  5  per  cent,  per  annum.  In  the  month  of 
March,  1834,  this  bank  failed,  and  in  the  month  of  September  following, 
when  the  value  of  the  deposit  had  sunk  to  33  per  cent,  of  its  nominal  amount, 
the  certificate  was  transferred  to  the  account  of  the  General  Post  Office  in  that 
bank,  by  authority  of  a  letter  of  Mr.  Brown,  in  which  he  says  it  is  done  by 
the  order  of  the  Postmaster  General.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  loss  has 
thereby  been  sustained  by  the  department;  but  Mr.  Brown  has  been  per- 
mitted to  take  advantage  of  his  official  station,  and  thus  secure  the  full  pay- 
ment of  his  own  claim,  to  the  injury  of  the  other  creditors  of  the  bank. 

It  will  also  be  recollected  that  Mr.  Brown  received  from  Reeside 
and  Slay  maker,  on  the  10th  January,  1833,  the  sum  of  iS3,000,  which  is 
said  to  be  a  loan  at  an  interest  of  six  per  cent.,  but  for  which  no  note  or 
memorandum  in  writing  of  any  kind  was  taken.  Only  !^1,000  of  this  sum 
is  pretended  to  have  been  repaid;  and  the  whole  amount  was  raised  by 
Reeside  and  Slaymaker,  on  drafts;  and  in  order  to  keep  up  the  loan,  they 
continued  to  draw  and  redraw,  in  the  manner  stated  below,  in  the  deposi- 
tion of  G.  E   Dyson. 

"  In  answer  to  the  interrogatories  propounded  to  me  by  the  honorable  the 
Commiitee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  affairs  of  the  Post 
Office  Department,  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  in  the  month  of  Februa- 
ry, 1833,  I  received  from  the  cashier  of  the  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia 
the  two  following  described  drafts,  for  collection  and  credit  of  that  institu- 
tion, viz.: 

"  S.  R.  Slaymaker's  draft  on  0.  B.  Brown,  favor  of  James  Reeside,  da- 
led  10th  January,  1833,  payable  at  90  days  after  date,  for  fifteen  hundred 
dollars. 

♦*S  R.  Slaymakers's  draft  on  0.  B.  Brown,  favor  of  James  Reeside, 
dated  10th  January,  1833,  payaBle  at  ninety  days  after  date,  for  fifteen  hun- 
dred dollars. 

"  The  above  drafts  became  due  on  the  10th — 13th  of  April,  and  were  paid 
on  the  17th  day  of  April,  by  proceeds  of  a  draft  drawn  by  James  Reeside 
on  0.  B.  Brown,  dated  the  13th  day  of  said  month,  payable  at  ninety  days 
after  date,  discounted  by  the  Patriotic  Bank  of  Washington,  the  discount 
having  been  paid  bj-  James  Reeside. 

''About  the  18th  of  July  of  the  same  year,  the  Patriotic  Bank  discount- 
ed the  tv.o  following  described  drafts,  out  of  the  proceeds  of  which  the 
before  mentioned  drafts  of  James  Reeside  on  0.  B.  Brown  for  three  thou- 
sand dollars  wore  paid. 


S5  [  86  ] 

"  S.  R.  Slay  maker's  draft,  on  James  Reeside,  at  ninety  day?,  from  the  13th 
July,  1S33,  for  two  thousand  dollars,  and  by  me  sent  to  the  Bank  of  Mary- 
land for  collection  and  credit. 

*'Also  0.  B.  Brown's  draft,  at  ninety  days,  from  13th  July,  1833,  on 
James  Reeside,  favor  of  S.  R.  Slaymaker,  for  two  thousand  dollars,  sent  to 
the  Bank  of  Maryland  in  like  manner  as  the  preceding  one. 

"G.  E.  DYSON." 


It  would  be  singular  if  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  should  have  raised  this 
sum  of  money  on  bills  of  exchange,  by  drawing  and  redrawing,  in  order  to 
lend  it  out  at  legal  interest  to  Mr.  Brown,  unless  they  hoped  to  avail 
themselves  of  his  good  will  and  of  his  official  station  for  their  own  indem- 
nity; and  especially,  that  they  should  take  no  note  or  written  memorandum 
of  so  large  a  transaction,  nor  make  any  entry  of  it  in  the  books  of  either. 
It  would  seem  equally  extraordinary  that  Brown  should  permit  a  loan  of 
$2,000  at  five  per  cent,  to  be  outstanding  against  him,  while  he  had  a  deposite 
of  a  like  sum  in  the  Bank  of  Maryland,  atan  interest  of  five  per  cent.  The  ad- 
vance of  JSSjOOO  to  Porter,  if  it  were  as  is  pretended  a  loan,  would  be  equally 
extraordinary  under  the  circumstances.  It  is  pretended  that  it  was  the 
money  of  the  heirs  of  Dr.  Jackson;  but  if  it  were,  and  your  committee 
do  not  at  all  rely  upon  the  statement  that  it  was  so,  there  was,  according  to 
the  statement  of  Brown,  83,000  of  his  own  money  advanced  by  him  for 
these  heirs,  in  an  investment  in  his  own  name,  and  for  which  he  took  the 
profits,  so  far  as  moneys  were  paid  for  them;  and  lastly,  the  notes  of  Porter 
for  the  original  sum.  He  made  no  note  or  memorandum  at  the  time,  show- 
ing that  any  part  of  the  original  sum  or  the  profits  was  the  property  of  any 
person  except  himself.  But  now,  when  his  official  coaduct  is  implicated, 
he  attetnpts  hy  new  entries,  which  he  calls  "  original,"  to  cast  off  the 
just  censure  from  his  own  acts  by  professing  to  act  not  in  his  own  right, 
but  in  behalf  of  others.  If  in  fact  he  had  in  his  hands  the  money  uf  the 
heirs  of  Ur.  Jackson,  he  has  always  been,  and  still  is  liable  to  them  for  the 
original  anriount  of  that  mone)'  and  the  interest;  and  these  investments  and 
these  ventures  are  his  own,  and  they  involve  his  own  personal  z.n(\.  official 
responsibility. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was,  that  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  raised  by 
bills  of  exchange  and  advanced  to  Mr.  Brown  the  sum  of  $3,000.  The  Senate, 
with  a  full  view  of  the  matter,  recollecting  at  the  same  time  the  very  large 
and  extraordinary  extra  alloioances  made  to  these  two  individuals  on  their 
mail  contracts,  will  not  be  at  a  loss  to  fix  a  just  and  proper  estimate  upon 
these  transactions. 

In  examining  the  account  of  James  Reeside,  your  committee  found  to  his 
credit  the  following: 

'<1833,  ApHi  30.  Cash  deposited  in  the  Western  Bank,  Philadelphia, 
$20,000."~See  Document  No.  1. 

Your  committee,  while  in  Philadelphia,  examined  the  books  of  the  Western 
Bank,  and  obtained  a  statement  of  its  transactions  with  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment, (see  Doc.  No.  129,)  by  which  it  appears  that  this  sum  was  raised 
by  Reeside  on  a  draft  drawn  by  himself  in  favor  of  R.  C.  Stockton,  and 
accepted  by  0.  B.  Brown,  chief  clerk,  dated  the  29lh  day  of  April,  1834,  and 


[  S6    ]  S6 

payable  three  moni.hs  al'lcr  date,  which  draft  was  paid  by  the  departnieiit  at 
maturity;  so  that,  as  the  transaction  stood  at  the  time  the  account  of  Reeside 
was  made  out,  and  presented  to  the  committee,  he  was  entitled  to  no  credit 
arising  from  this  transaction.  If  a  credit  were  entered  on  the  books  at  the  time 
the  draft  was  negotiated,  th.en,  when  the  draft  was  paid  by  the  department, 
there  should  have  been  a  charge  of  an  equal  sum  against  Reeside  to  balance 
it.  This  was  not  done,  and  this  sum  stood  as  a  credit  to  Reeside,  and  it 
lielped  to  reduce  a  balance  of  $54,369  07,  which,  notwithstanding  his  large 
extra  allowances,  stood  against  him  on  the  books  of  the  department  on  the 
Ist  of  April,  1S34,  Your  committe  called  upon  Obadiah  B.  Brown  to  ex- 
plain this  transaction,  and  hp  stated  that  the  draft  on  which  Reeside  raised 
this  money  had  not  become  due  until  some  time  in  them.onth  of  JNovember, 
and  that  since  that  time  there  had  been  no  settlement  with  the  bank,  so  that 
the  credit  could,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  be  entered.  A  member 
of  your  committee  then,  in  the  hearing  of  the  witness,  asked  for  the  state- 
ment of  the  cashier  of  the  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  paper 
not  being  in  the  committee  room,  it  was  sent  for,  and  the  witness  was  dis- 
TTiissed  until  it  should  be  brought  in.  After  a  short  time  the  witness  re- 
turned, stated  that  he  had  been  mistaken,  that  the  charge  against  Mr.  Reeside 
was  omitted  by  mistake,  and  also  b}'  mistake  entered  against  R.  C.  Stockton, 
but  that  he  had  promptly  corrected  the  entry  on  the  books,  and  that  it 
was  now  all  right  Your  committee  directed  the  witness  to  bring  in  the 
books  in  which  he  had  made  the  correction;  he  did  so,  and  showed  no  less 
than  seven  erasures  and  changes  of  entry  which  he  had  caused  to  be  made 
in  the  books  in  the  short  time  that  your  committee  had  respited  him  from 
examination.  The  credit  which  is  due  to  books  thus  kept,  and  thus  altered 
to  suit  the  exigencies  of  the  occasion,  can  be  readily  appreciated  by  the 
Senate. — See  Documents  No.  130  and  131. 

One  circumstance  attending  the  above  case  may  serve  to  show  the 
difficulty  of  arriving  at  these  transactions  of  the  department  with  its  confi- 
dential agents.  Your  committee,  in  the  course  of  the  investigation  during 
the  last  session  of  Congress,  were  informed  that  money  had  been  raised 
for  the  use  of  the  department  upon  the  credit  of  some  of  the  principal  con- 
tractors; and  on  the  examination  of  James  Reeside,  they  inquired  of  hinj 
whether  he  had  ''  at  any  time  or  times  drawn  a  draft  or  drafts  for  the  pur- 
pose of  raising  money  for  the  department?'^  In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  he 
says:  "  I  did  in  two  instances.  About  two  years  ago,  in  consequence  of  a 
letter  received  from  the  department,  stating  in  substance  that  they  were  in 
want  of  money  at  this  city,  or  Philadelphia,  I  drew  a  draft  for  six  thousand 
dollars,  which  was  negotiated  at  the  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia.  The 
draft  was  drawn  on  the  department  at  a  short  date,  and  paid  at  maturity. 
The  other  case  was  some  time  last  winter.  I  arranged  ten  thousand  dollars 
through  Mr.  Bates,  the  assistant  postmaster  at  New  York,  by  drawing 
drafts  upon  the  department  at  the  request  of  the  department.  I  presume 
they  have  been  paid,  as  I  have  heard  nothing  from  themfcince."  But  he 
says  nothing  of  this  draft  of  twenty  thousand  dollars.  His  deposition  was 
taken  on  the  21st  May,  1834,  and  this  money  was  raised  for  the  depart- 
ment on  the  30th  April  previous. 

Another  credit  of  Reeside  attracted  the  attention, of  the  committee.  It  ia 
entered  under  date  of  October  11, 1S33,  and  is  asfollows:— (See  Doc.  No- 1.) 

<<  Cash  depo-^ited  in  Western  l^ank,   Philadelphia,  $6,000."     And  your 


87  [  S6  ] 

committer  found  by  the  statement,  furnished  them  by  this  bank,  that  lliis 
sum  was  also  raised  on  a  draft  drawn  by  Reeside,  and  accepted  by  C.  K. 
Gardner,  Assistant  Postmaster  General,  and  paid  at  maturity  by  the  depart- 
ment. Your  committee  not  finding  any  corresponding  charge  to  Reeside 
on  the  books,  called  before  tliem  C.  K.  Gardner,  Assistant  Postmaster 
General,  and  pointed  out  to  him  this  credit,  and  asked  him  for  a  corres- 
ponding charge  and  an  explanation  of  the  transaction.  His  statement  in 
reply  to  this  inquiry  shows  a  state  of  things  and  a  course  of  business  exist- 
ing in  this  office,  of  which,  until  recently,  we  have  had  no  knowledge.  His 
evidence  on  that  point  is  as  follows: — See  Document  No.  132. 

"I  think  I  can  explain  it.  Mr.  Suter  wrote  to  Air.  Reeside  to  make 
his  draft  and  deposite  the  amount  of  SG, 000,  to  the  credit  ot  the  department, 
in  the  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia,  to  enable  the  department  to  meet  its 
checks  drawn  and  to  be  drawn  on  that  bank.  This  mode  of  raising  the 
mone}^,  or  supplying  the  deficiency  of  the  department,  was  suggested  by 
the  Postmaster  General,  and  some  discussion  was  had  on  the  subject,  but 
we  concluded  to  avoid  that  mode  of  supplying  the  dejjartment"  in  future, 
apprehending  the  impropriety  of  being  dependant  on  the  credit  of  con- 
tractors to  supply  the  wants  of  the  department;  and  we  avoided  it  until  the 
deficiencies  of  the  department  in  December,  1S32,  rendered  it  necessary  to 
make  the  first  loan  of  the  Manhattan  Company  for  4550,000." 

Question  2d.  "  Was  that  draft  of  S6,000  accepted  by  the  department, 
and  paid  by  the  department  at  its  maturity?" 

Answer.     "It  was;  and  paid  at  maturity." 

Question  5th.  "  We  fi:nd,  in  the  account  of  James  Reeside,  a  char^fe 
against  him  of  12tli  January,  1S33,  '  Cash,  Bank  U.  S. ,  Baltimore,  SG,000.' 
Is  that  the  same  sum  of  §6,000  which  you  find  in  the  cash  book  and  leger, 
as  stated  in  your  above  deposition?" 

Answer.  "The  payment  was  S6,100,  as  appears  by  the  followino- 
check : 

"No.  4161.  Post  Office  Department, 

«  fFas/iinglon,  Jamian/  12,  1S33. 

-  Bank    of    the   United    States,  office  at  Baltimore,   pay  G.    E.    Dvson, 
cashier,  or  order,  sfx  thousand  one  humlred  dollars. 

"SGIOO.  Registered, 

C.  K.  GARDNER, 
JJs^htant  Postmasler  General. 
0.  B.  Browx,  Chief  Clerk. 

Endorsed   by   Geo.  E.  Dyson  to  R.    Wilson,  Esq.,   cashier,   or  order, 

R.   WILSON,  Cashier.'' 


and  signed 


"The  requisition  on  which  the  check  was  given,  as  above,   is  in  the  fol- 
lowing words: 

"  Post  Opfick  Department, 

Pay  Office,  Jan.  12,  1S33. 

I  certify   that    a  check  U    required   for   SG.IOO,  to  pay   the  following 
draft,  viz: 


[  86  ]  88 

Drriwer's  name.               Dale.                  In  whoso  favor.  Amount. 

Wm.  Y.  Wetzel.  Sept.  19,  IS.ia.          VV.  P.  Hunt.  Si 00  00 

.lames  Reeside.  Sov.  19,  1832.         To  order.  6,000  00 


Favor  of  G.  E.  Dy.son,  Cashier.  S6,100  00 

4161. 
On  account  of  pay  for  transporting  the  mail  to  January,  1833. 

JOHN  SUTER, 

Principal  Pay  Clerk. 

Approved.  C.  K.  GARDNER, 

t/lssistant  Postmaster  General. 

Endorsed,  No.  41  Gl.     Transportation." 

"The  Patriotic  Bank  held  the  two  drafts  on  the  department,  as  appears 
by  the  certificate.  One  of  J^lOO,  to  be  charged  to  account  of  Wetzel,  and 
the  other  of  $6000,  to  be  charged  to  Reeside.  One  check  was  given  to 
cover  both  sums. 

"The  certificate,  as  above,  was  made  on  the  principle  that  Reeside  had 
refunded,  on  the  19th  November,  1S32,  so  much  money  due  him  for  the 
transportation  of  the  mail;  and  consequently  the  same  sum  of  money  re- 
mained due  to  him  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  (which  was  paid  on 
the  12th  January,  1S33,  to  wit:  S6,000)  of  pay  for  the  preceding  quarter, 
just  expired,  which  frequently  and  habitually  occurs  in  the  accounts  of  the 
large  contractors,  who  are  not  often  entirely  paid  up,  and  whose  accounts 
are  not  finally  adjusted  till  the  last  quarter  of  their  contracts.  The  terms 
of  the  draft  of  Mr.  Reeside  required  that  the  sum  drawn  for  should  be 
charo-cd  in  his  account  for  'transportation.'  The  introduction,  however, 
of  these  items  into  the  general  account  of  expenditures  was  a  further  ob- 
jection to  the  mode  of  relieving  the  department.'' 

Thus,  when  these  acceptances  are  made,  they  are  credited  to  the  con- 
tractor as  so  much  money  paid  by  him  to  the  use  of  the  department,  though 
lie,  in  fact,  pays  nothing,  but  merely  lends  his  name  as  a  drawer  or  endori>er. 
The  same  sum  is  charged  to  the  bank  as  so  much  deposited  to  the  credit  of 
the  department,  and  the  draft  is  at  last  taken  up  by  a  check,  which  is  certi- 
fied to  be  ioY  transjjortafion  by  the  three  o^\cevs,  who,  according  to  the 
improved  system  of  checks  on  disbursements  adopted  by  Mr.  Barry,  are 
required  to  certify  every  check  which  issues  from  the  department.  But  by 
examining  these  debits  and  credits,  and  certificates  for  transportation,  no 
accountant,  however  skilful,  could  ascertain  that  such  expedients  had  been 
resorted  to,  or  that  money  had  been  raised  in  that  manner.  These  certi- 
ficates, upon  whatever  grounds  they  may  be  supported,  are  contrary  to  the 
plain  fact  of  the  cuse. 

There  are  many  other  matters  within  the  scope  of  the  present  inquiry 
which  have  been  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  your  committe.  Some  of 
these  have  been  partly  considered,  others  remain  untouched;  but  your  com- 
mittee hope  to  examine  and  present  to  the  Senate  those  which  they  deem 
of  the  most  importance  within  the  present  session. 

So  numerous  and  so  great  are  the  abuses  which  have  grown  up  in  this 
department,  that  reform  has  become  absolutely  necessary;  but  the  measures 
by  which  it  is  to  be  effected  are  by  no  means  free  from  embarrassment. 
They  are  the  more  difficult,  as  many  of  the  evils  which  require  a  remedy 
do  not  arise  from  defects  in  the  existing  law.  but  from  an  habitual  disregard 


89  [  86  ] 

of  plain  legal  provisions.  They  may,  however,  be  principally  traced  to  the 
absolute  and  unchecked  power  which  a  single  individual  holds  over  the  re- 
sources and  disbursements,  and  all  the  vast  niach''inery  of  this  department. 
The  checks  of  various  inferior  officers  upon  each  other  are  of  no  value, 
when  all  nre  guided  and  controlled  in  their  acts  by  one  dominant  will. 
Within  the  comparatively  short  period  of  fifty-five  years  that  department  has 
arisen,  from  a  feeble  beginning,  until  it  has  acquired  a  revenue  equal  to  that 
of  the  Union  itself  at  the  time  of  its  organization:  and  its  extensive  and 
diversified  operations,  its  patronage,  its  resources,  and  its  power,  must,  by 
the  mere  force  of  circumstances,  go  on  increasing  indefinitely  with  the 
increase  of  our  country  in  population,  business,  anrl  wealth.  The  an- 
nual reports  by  the  Postmaster  General  are  of  little  value,  as  a  restraint 
upon  the  head  of  the  department,  or  as  a  means  of  calling  public  atten- 
tion to  his  official  conduct.  These  reports  may  be  true,  and  yet  the  state 
of  affairs  which  they  indicate  cannot  be  understood  without  that  careful 
examination  which  few  or  none  will  feel  willing  to  give  them,  amidst  the 
other  arduous  duties  of  legislation;  or  those  statements  may  be  false  and 
delusive,  and  yet  few  will  be  disposed  to  bestow  on  them  the  labor,  bodily 
and  mental,  which  would  be  necessary  for  their  correction,  and  to  encounter 
the  bitterness  of  party  rancor,  and  the  reckless  violence  of  party  calumny, 
which  those  must  encounter  who  venture  to  explore  the  secret  mysteries  of 
great  patronage  and  high  power,  and  to  expose  their  enormities  to  the 
public  gaze.  Frem  reflecting  on  these  and  other  causes,  leading  to  the  same 
result,  your  committee  incline  to  the  opinion,  that  there  will  be  few  in- 
stances, in  the  future  history  of  our  country,  of  a  full  and  searching  investi- 
gation into  the  conduct  and  management  of  the  Post  Office  Departmen-t. 
They  deem  it,  therefore,  their  duty  at  this  time,  to  propose  such  measures  of 
legislation  as  will,  in  their  opinion,  the  most  effectually  prevent  the  recur- 
rence in  future  of  abuses  similar  to  those  which  the  present  investigation 
has  disclosed.  This  they  conceive  can  be  best  effected  by  a  change  in  the 
organization  of  the  department,  so  as  to  place  the  collection  and  the  dis- 
bursement of  its  funds  in  different  hands,  and  under  the  control  of  officers 
entirely  independent  of  each  other.  That  department,  as  at  present 
arranged,  is  a  dangerous  anomaly  in  our  system;  and  by  whomsoever  its 
concerns  are  hereafter  to  be  conducted,  its  organization  ought  to  be 
changed  so  as  to  conform  more  nearly  to  that  of  the  other  great  depart- 
ments of  our  government.  The  accountability  of  its  officers  ought  also  to 
be  rendered  more  effective,  and  their  discretion  limited  as  far  as  is  consistent 
with  the  efficient  performance  of  the  public  service.  To  effect  these  several 
objects  your  committee  report  a  bill. 

13 


[  86  ]  .  90 


In  Senate  of  the  United  States. 
January  27,  1835. 

Views  of  the  minority  of  the  Committee  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post 
Roads  on  the  condition  and  proceedings  of  the  General  Post  Office: 
submitted  by  Mr.  Grundy. 

It  has  again  become  the  duty  of  the  undersigned  to  present  their  views  of 
the  several  subjects  which,  under  the  resolution  of  the  Senate  of  the  last 
session,  have  been  investigated  by  the  Post  Office  Committee.  In  discharging 
this  duty,  a  minute  examination  of  all  the  matters  embraced  in  the  range  of 
inquiries  instituted  by  the  committee  will  be  unnecessary,  as  the  whole  of 
the  evidence  taken  by  them  will  be  laid  before  the  Senate,  from  which  each 
Senator  will  be  enabled  to  draw  his  own  conclusions  and  form  his  own  opi- 
nions. 

The  first  and  leading  subject  to  which  the  committee  directed  its  atteu- 
tion  was  the  financial  condition  of  the  department.     At  the  last  session  o 
Congress  a  great  difference  of  opinion  existed  between  the  majority  and 
minority  of  the  committee,  in  relation   to  this  branch  of  the  subject;  the 
former  supposing  that  on  the  1st  day  of  April   last  the  deficit  in  its  means 
to  meet  its  engagements  amounted  to  ^832,567,  except  old  balances  prior  to 
the  1st  of  October,  1833;  the  latter,  that  it  only  amounted   to  the  sum  of 
i5292,l09  4S.     These  several  opinions  were  founded  on  estimates  furnished 
by  the  department.     The  committee,  in  September  last,  came  to  the  deter- 
mination of  ascertaining  the  true  condition  of  the  pecuniary  concerns  of  the 
department  on  that  day  by  actual  calculation,  and  for  that  purpose  called  to 
their  aid   two  skilful  accountants,  Mr.  Pishey  Thompson,  of  Washington 
city,  and  Mr.  George  S.  Hough,  of  Alexandria.     They  have  both  been  most 
assiduously  engaged  in  that  service  from  that  time  to  the  present,  but  have 
not  as  yet  been  able  to  present  their  report  to  the  committee.     The  under- 
signed will  therefore  refrain,  for  the  present,  from  saying  any  thing  or  ex- 
pressing any  opinion  as  to  the  probable  result  of  their  labors.     The  com- 
mittee also  called  upon  the  department  for  a  statement  of  its  financial  condi- 
tion, with  which  they  have  been  furnished.      From  this  statement  it  appears 
that  a  full  list  of  balances  has  been  made  out  from  the  books  of  the  depart- 
ment, as  the  accounts  stood  on  the  1st  day  of  April,  1834,  exclusive  of  the 
transactions  under  that  date.     The  list  of  balances  includes  all  balances  due 
to  the  department  on  account  of  postages  which  accrued   prior  to  the  1st  of 
January,  1834;  but  it  does  not  include  any  part  of  the  postages  which  ac- 
crued during  the  quarter  which  ended  the  31st  of  March,  1834,  because  those 
sums  are  not  charged  to  the  respective  postmasters  under  a  date  prior  to  the 
1st  of  April,  1834.     It  includes  all  balances  due  to  contractors  for  services 
performed  prior  to  January,  1S34,  so  far  as  the  same  had  been  entered  to  the 
credit  of  the  contractors;  but  it  does  not  include  the  sums  due  to  contractors 
for  any  part  of  the  services  rendered  during  the  quarter  which  ended  on  the 
31st  of  March,  1834,  because  the  allowances  for  those  services  were  not  en- 
tered to  the  credit  of  the  contractors  under  a  date  prior  to  the  1st  of  April, 


91 


[86  ] 


1834.     It  does  not  include  any  of  the  sums  which  had  been  carried  to  the 
account  of  bad  debts,  suspense,  or  profit  and  loss;  because  when  accounts  of 
individuals  are  closed  by  either  of  these  items,  they  no  longer  exhibit  the 
balances.     But  the  list  of  balances  includes  all  payments  made  to  contractors 
prior  to  the  1st  of  April,  1834,  whether  for  services  rendered  prior  to  the 
1st  of  Januar}'-,  or  for  services  of  the  quarter  current  from  the  1st  of  January 
to  the  3lst  of  March,  1834.     It  includes  all  payments  made  by  postmasters 
prior  to  the  Ist  of  April,  1S34,  whether  for  postages  which  accrued  prior  to 
the  1st  of  January,  or  for  postages  accruing  during  the  quarter  current  from 
the  1st  of  January  to  the  31st  of  March,  1834.      It  includes  all  payments 
made  for  interest,  incidental  expenses,  or  for  any  other  purposes  prior  to 
the  1st  of  January,  1834,  so  as  to  exhibit  the  exact  statement  of  the  balances 
of  the  accounts  as  they  appeared  in  the  books  of  the  department  to  that  dav. 
From  this  list  of  balances,  it  appears  that  the  following  sums  were  due  to 
the  department  on  the  1st  of  April,  1834,  viz.; 

From  former  postmasters  who  had  gone  out  of  office  before  the  1st  of 
January,  1833       .  .  .  .  .  .        Sl47,732  02 

From  postmasters  still  in  office,  or  who  had  not  gone  out  of  office  before 
the  1st  January,  1833,  for  postages  which  had  accrued  prior  to  January  1, 
1834  .......        S248,029   11 

From  former  contractors,  agents,  and  on  miscellaneous  accounts,  whose 
contracts  had  expired,  or  whose  accounts  had  ceased  to  be  current  before  the 
ist  of  January,  1833         .....  §33,178  38 

^.,    Balances  against  contractors  for  payments  made  to  them  prior  to  April  1, 
■'1834,  for  the  current  services  of  the  quarter  which  ended  on  that  day,  and 
for  former  services  which  had  not  been  placed  to  their  credit,  amounting 
to  1^384,897  38,  making  together,  when  added,  the  amount  of  balances  due 
to  the  department,  as  appeared  on  the  books  on  the  1st  of  April,  1834,  the 
sum  of  S7 13,836  89.     To  this  sum  add  the  net  amount  of  postage  which 
accrued  from  the  1st  of  January  to  the  3lst  of  March,  1834,  not  included 
in  the  list  of  balances,  $496,677  21;  and  the  total  amount  of  balances  due 
to  the  department  on  the  1st  day  of  April,  1834,  was        -     §1,210,514  10 
The  same  list  of  balances  shows  that  the  following  sums  were  dae  by  the 
department  on  the  1st  of  April,  1834^  viz.: 

To  former  postmasters  who  had  gone  out  of  office  prior  to  the  1st  of  Janu- 
ary, 1833,  balances  amounting  to  .  .  .  $7,020  50 
To  former  contractors,  agents,  and  miscellaneous  accounts, 
whose  contracts   had   expired,   or  whose  accounts  had 
ceased  to  be  current,  from  the  1st  of  January,  1833        .  3,470  5S 
To  postmasters  still  in  office,  or  who  were  in  office  on  the 
1st  of  January,  1833,  principally  for  payments  made  on 
account  of  current  postages  during  the  quarter  ending 
the  1st  April,  1834         .....           118,43950 

To  contractors  whose  contracts  were  still  running,  or  had 
not  expired  prior  to  January  1,  1833,  for  services  prior 
to  1st  January,  1834       ,  -  .  .  .  223,484  i>5 


Making,  together,  the  amount  of  balances  due  from  the  de- 
partment, as  appears  from  the  list  of  balances,  on  the  1st 
day  of  April,  1834         .....        $352,465  43 


[86] 


92 


To  this  amount  add  the  following  sums,  which  are  not  in- 
cluded in  the  list  of  balances,  viz. : 
Amount  due  for  transportation  on  the  1st  of  April,  1834, 

which  has  not  yet  been  credited  to  contractors  .  $49,487  80 

The  expense  for  transporting  the  mail   from  January  1st 

to  April  1st,  1834,  amounted  to  .  .  .  454,514  2'2 

Balance  due  to  banks  on  the  1st  of  April,  1834,  above  the 

amount  of  deposites  to  the  credit  of  the  department  on 

that  day,  including  all  loans        ....  451,599  43 

Making  the  asgregate  of  all  debts  due  from  the  department 

on  tlie  1st  of  April,  1834,  amount  to      .  .  .       1,308,066  93 

From  this  sum  deduct  the  amount  of  debt  due  to  the  de- 
partment on  that  day      .....       1,210,514  10 

And  the  balance  against  the  department  on  that  day  was     .  97,552  8ft 

The  Postmaster  General  reported  as  unavail- 
able in  1828       ....  S2S4,289 

In  1829  the  further  sum  of  .  .  22,235 

Also  in  1829,  counterfeit  and  notes  of  broken 

banks  .  .  ...  4,306 


310,830 


Of  what  had  been  estimated  unavailable, 
there  had  been  charged  to  profit  and  loss, 
suspense  and  bad  debts  .  .  .        123,500  96 

Leaving  an  account  of  balances,  of  what  had  been  reported 

unavailable,      .  .....  187,329  04 


Which,  added  to  the  above,  shows  the  whole  debt  of  the 
department,  on  the  1st  of  April,  1834  beyond  its  avail- 
able means,  to  have  been  ....       $284,881   92 


This  is  S7,227  56  less  than  appeared  from  the  estimates  assumed  by  the 
minority  ot  the  committee  in  the  former  report;  and  not  so  much  as  the  esti- 
mated amount  of  the  majority  of  the  committee,  by  S5I7,562  OS,  except  old 
balances  prior  to  the  1st  of  October,  1833. 
The  whole  amount  of  unavailable  funds  was  estimated 

on  the  1st  of  July,  1829,  to  be  .  .  .       $310,830  00 

If  from  this  sum  we  subtract  the  amount  carried  to  ac- 
counts of  profit  and  loss,  suspense  and  bad  debts  .  123,500  9f 

It  will  leave,  of  the  balances  on  the  books  arising  from 
transactions  prior  to  July  Ist,  1829,  an  amount  estimated 
unavailable  of  .      ,        .  .  .  .        S^87,329  04 

But  the  whole  amount  of  balances  on  the  books  remaining  due,  arising 
from  transactions  prior  to  January  1st,  1833,  which  is  three  years  and  a  half 
after,  i€onlj  .  .  '.  .  ,  .'    Sl80,910  40 


93  [  ?6  ] 

So  that  if  every  debt  due  prior  to  January  1st,  1S33,  should  be  lost,  stil 
the  loss  will  not  amount  to  as  much  as  was  estimated  to  have  been  lost  three 
years  and  a  half  before  that  date,  by  .  .  .  S6,41S  64 

The  interest  paid  prior  to  April  1st,  1S34,  is  included  in  the  account  of 
balances.  From  the  1st  of  April  to  the  1st  of  July,  1834,  no  interest  is  in- 
cluded, because  it  is  stated  that  interest  has  been  collected  by  the  department 
at  sundry  times,  and  not  brought  into  the  accounts,  more  than  sufficient  to 
cover  it:  but  if  we  add  for  the  interest  which  accrued  during  that  quarter,  the 
sum  of  $6,000,  the  deficit  will  have  been,  on  the  1st  day  of  July,  1834, 
$264,211  36.  This  is  a  little  less  than  the  sum  reported  by  the  Postmaster 
General  to  the  President  in  his  report  of  November  last,  which  difference 
is  testified  by  the  chief  clerk  to  have  arisen  from  the  circumstance  that  the 
report  was  made  to  the  President  from  the  general  statement,  as  it  is  made 
quarterly  on  the  books  of  the  department,  and  this  is  made  from  a  list  of 
balances  drawn  out  in  detail;  and  for  many  years  before  the  present  Post- 
master General  came  into  office  there  appeared  a  small  discrepancy  betwpen 
the  general  statement  and  the  lists  of  balances  taken  from  time  to  time, 
which  has  never  been  reconciled. 

After  receiving  the  financial  report  above  referred  to  from  the  department, 
the  committee  instituted  a  strict  inquiry  into  the  correctness  of  the  item  of 
Sl23,500  95,  which  was  reported  to  have  been  transferred  to  the  accounts 
of  bad  debts,  profit  and  loss,  and  suspense,  and  did  not  appear  on  the  list  of 
balances  of  accounts  due  to  the  department.  From  a  statement  (see  Doc.  4)  of 
the  items  which  have  been  furnished  to  the  committee,  it  appears  that  there 
has  been  charged  to  the  account  of  bad  debts  the  sum  of  §77,662  26;  to  the 
account  of  profit  and  loss  821,554  48;  and  to  the  account  of  suspense,  the 
sum  of  $25,036  69,  making  an  aggregate  of  $124,253  43,  which  is  6752  04 
more  than  the  sum  reported  in  the  financial  report  made  to  the  committee; 
which  difference  is  accounted  for  by  the  circumstance  that  the  books  have 
been  posted  up  since  the  time  when  the  statement  ©f  the  item  of  §123,500  96 
was  made  out. 

Various  allegations  have  been  made  in  relation  to  paper  and  twine  fur- 
nished by  contractors  for  the  use  of  the  department.  The  committee  have 
deemed  it  to  be  their  duty  to  investigate  the  subject;  and  in  order  to  facili- 
tate their  inquiries,  and  to  obtain  a  speedy  and  correct  knowledge  and  un- 
derstanding of  the  facts,  they  repaired  to  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  and  to 
Boston  and  Ijowell,  Massachusetts,  at  which  places  it  was  believed  that 
satisfactory  testimony  could  be  procured,  showing  whether  any  malprac-^ 
tices  had  obtained  in  relation  to  these  articles.  The  inquiries  of  the  com* 
mittee  were  extended  retrospectively  as  far  as  the  2d  of  February,  1820,  at 
which  time  a  contract  was  made  by  Mr.  Meigs,  then  Postmaster  General, 
with  Thomas  Rowe,  for  the  supply  of  the  articles  in  question.  By  that  con- 
tract the  following  prices  were  stipulated  and  allowed: 

For  printing  blank  accounts  for  mails  received,  mails  re- 
ceived for  distribution,  and  mails  sent  , 

For  ruling  same  with  feint  lines  .... 

P'or  printing  post  bills      .  .  .  .  , 

For  printing  accounts  current       .... 

For  paper,  royal,  for  mails  received  and  received  for  dis- 
tribution .  .  .  .  .  .        9  00     do 


S4  00  p 

er  ream 

4  00 

do 

1  50 

do 

4  00 

do 

[  86  ]  94 

For  super-royal  for  mails  sent      .  .  .  .§12  oop^rream 

For  foolscap,  No.  1,  for  accounts  current  ,  .       5  00     do 

For  foolscap,  No.  2,  for  post  bills  .  .  .       3  75     do 

For  wrapping  paper,  super-royal  .  .  .       7  00     do 

For  twine  to  make  up  the  packages,  and  the  trouble  of  sending  off  the 
blanks,  the  sum  of  200  dollars  per  annum  was  allowed;  and  there  was  al- 
lowed for  wrapping  paper  and  twine  used  in  putting  up  the  packages  the  sum 
of  50  dollars  per  quarter,  making  200  dollars  per  annum.  This  last  allow- 
ance continued  to  be  made  as  long  as  Mr.  Rowe  continued  to  be  contractor. 
On  the  10th  of  June,  1826,  he  assigned  his  contract  to  Messrs.  True  and 
Greene,  from  which  time,  or  shortly  afterwards,  the  allowance  was  discon- 
tinued. 

On  the  1st  of  March,  1828,  a  contract  was  made  by  Mr.  McLean,  the  then 
Postmaster  General,  with  Simeon  Ide,  of  Windsor,  Vermont,  which  super- 
seded that  which  had  been  made  with  Tliomas  Rowe  in  1820,  and  assigned, 
as  before  remarked,  to  Messrs.  True  and  Greene  in  1S26.  The  contract 
with  Mr.  Ide  was  at  the  following  rates  and  prices: 

For  post  bills  without  signature    .  .  .  .     §3  75  pr.  ream 

For  post  bills  with  signature         .  .  .  .       4  00     do 

For  accounts  current        .  .  .  .  .       4  25     do 

For  accounts  of  mails  received  and  sent  for  distribution, 

on  paper  23  by  I82  inches        .  .  .  .       8  50     do 

For  accounts  of  mails  received  and  mails  sent,  on  paper  23 

by  ISi  inches  .  .  .  .  .       7  60     do 

All  the  accounts  of  mails  to  be  ruled  with  feint  lines,  and  all  other  blanks, 
when  required,  to  be  furnished  on  proportionable  terms.  Wrapping  paper 
of  super-royal  size  at  four  dollars  per  ream;  twine  at  thirty-six  cents  per 
pound  weight;  and  an  extra  allowance  to  be  paid  by  the  Postmaster  General 
to  Ide,  at  the  rate  of  one  hundred  dollars  per  annum,  for  making  up  and 
packing  the  above  mentioned  blanks,  &c.  The  whole  to  be  done  in  a  work- 
nianlike  manner;  and  the  paper  and  twine  to  be  of  the  qualities  specified  in 
Ide's  proposals. 

The  prices  for  wrapping  paper  and  twine,  as  specified  in  Mr.  Ide's  con- 
tract, are  lower  than  those  which  had  previously  been,  or  those  which  were 
subsequently  given  by  the  department.  Mr.  Ide,  however,  failed  in  the 
faithful  performance  and  fulfilment  of  his  contract,  more  to  the  detrimentof 
the  department  than  was  likely  to  have  been  saved  by  the  difference  of 
prices.  It  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Calvin  Young,  William  Parker, 
and  Nathaniel  Melcher,  that  the  wrapping  paper  furnished  by  Mr.  Ide  was 
of  very  inferior  quality,  and  not  as  valuable  by  any  means  as  that  previously- 
furnished  by  Messrs.  True  and  Greene,  or  by  Charles  Greene,  the  present 
contractor,  by  fifteen  or  twenty  per  cent.  And  further,  that  most  of  the 
twine  furnished  by  Mr.  Ide  was  unfit  for  post  office  use,  and  cost  but  little 
jnore  than  half  the  price  of  that  which  is  furnished  by  the  present  contractor. 
(See  Documents  No.  39  to  52,  inclusive.) 

The  prices  paid  to  the  present  contractor  were  fixed  and  stipulated  by 
the  department  on  the  21st  of  January,  1830,  at  the  following  rates: 

For  paper  for  post  bills  .  ' .  .  .  $3  per  ream 

For  accomits  of  mails  sent  and  received  .  .  7         do 

For  accounts  current  ....  5         do 

For  stoutest  and  strongest  wrapping  paper      .  .  5         do 


$1 

50 

do 

4 

00 

do 

2 

50 

do 

3 

00 

do 

95  [  86  3 

For  printing  post  bills  .... 

For  printing  accounts  of  mails  sent  and  received 
For  printing  accounts  current    .... 
For  ruling  in  feint  blue  lines      .... 

From  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts,  it  appears  evident  that  the  con- 
tract made  by  the  present  Postmaster  General  with  Mr.  Greene,  was  as  fa- 
vorable to  the  department  as  could  have  been  reasonably  expected.  Tha 
only  further  question  presenting  itself  for  the  inquiry  of  the  committee  on 
this  branch  of  the  subject  of  their  investigations  is,  whether  the  present 
contractor  has  performed  his  agreement,  and  fulfilled  his  contract  with  tide- 
lity.  Upon  this  point,  and  especially  in  reference  to  the  wrapping  paper, 
of  the  quality  of  which  some  complaint  has  been  made,  the  commiitee 
examined  a  great  number  of  witnesses,  and  from  the  whole  of  their  testi- 
mony, when  taken  together,  it  is  made  e\'ident  that  the  present  contractor 
has  faithfully  and  punctually  complied  with  the  stipulations  of  his  contract. 
The  proof  by  which  this  is  established  and  made  manifest,  is  to  be  found  in 
the  depositions  of  And  Emerson,  who  manufactured  a  large  portion  of 
the  wrapping  paper  furnished  by  Mr.  Greene;  of  William  Parker,  who 
supplied  a  part  of  it;  of  Charles  Newell,  who  has  acted  since  the  1st  of  Ja- 
nuary, 1834,  as  clerk  for  the  contractor,  in  distributing  the  paper;  and  of 
S.  P.  Haywood  and  Nathaniel  Melcher.  These  witnesses  prove  that  the 
wrapping  paper  purchased  and  furnished  by  the  present  contractor  has 
always  been  of  good  quality,  and  equal  to  any  furnished  by  his  predecessors, 
with  the  single  exception  of  one  parcel,  a  part  of  which  had  been  distributed 
before  any  defect  had  been  discovered  in  its  quality  or  condition,  and  that 
as  soon  as  it  was  ascertained  to  have  been  defective,  the  remainder  of  the 
parcel  which  had  not  been  distributed,  was  returned  and  thrown  upon  the 
hands  of  the  manufacturer.  It  also  appears  in  the  testimony,  that  thp  defects 
in  that  parcel  of  paper  was  not  obvious  or  discoverable  from  its  appearance, 
and  was  discoverable  only  in  its  use.  The  vigilance  evinced  by  the  depart- 
ment in  promptly  inquiring  into  the  subject,  upon  the  first  intimation  that 
inferior  paper  had  been  sent  to  some  of  the  post  offices,  reflects  much  credit 
upon  its  watchfulness  and  circumspection. 

Inasmuch  as  the  public  mind  seemed  to  be  impressed  with  an  idea  that 
the  postmaster  at  Boston  was  the  person  really  interested  in  the  foregoing 
contract,  and  that  Mr.  Charles  G.  Greene  was  only  the  nominal  contractor; 
the  subject  was  made  a  matter  of  strict  scrutiny  on  the  part  of  the  committee, 
which  has  resulted  in  clear  and  satisfactory  proof  that  Nathaniel  Greene, 
the  postmaster  at  Boston,  has  had  no  interest  whatever  in  the  contract  for 
paper  and  twine  with  the  department  since  his  appointment  to  that  office. 
This  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  Benjamin  True,  Charles  G.  Greene, 
Thomas  H,  Grenville,  and  Nathaniel  Greene. 

The  onl  v  witness  whose  testimony  intimates  any  fact  implicating  Nathaniel 
Greene  as  a  partner  in  the  contract  is  JohnB.  Derby,  who  states  some  remarks 
of  Charles  G.  Greene,  made,  as  he  says,  a  short  time  prior  to  the  1st  of  March, 
1831,  showing  that  Nathaniel  Greene  was  at  that  time  interested  in  it.  Mr. 
Derby  may  have  mistaken  the  remarks  and  words,  as  well  as  the  subject 
matter  and  precise  bearing  of  the  language  of  Mr.  C.  G,  Greene,  which  re- 
ferred to  something  of  his  former  situation,  when  in  the  employment  of 
True  and  Greene,  by  supposing  them  applicable  to  the  timt  of  the  conversa- 
tion, or  he  may  have  been  mistaken  in  the  time  when  the  conversation  took 


[86] 


96 


place.  Either  of  these  suppositions  is  more  favorable  (o  Mr.  Derby  than 
to  place  his  testimony  in  direct  conflict  with  so  many  highly  respectable 
witnesses,  who  have  an  intimate  and  personal  knowledge  of  all  the  facta, 
and  in  the  statement  of  which  they  all  concur,  and  rendering  the  matter  as 
clear  as  evidence  can  make  it,  that  Nathaniel  Greene  has  had  no  interest 
whatever,  either  in  the  contract  with  the  department  or  in  the  newspaper 
edited  by  Charles  G.  Greene,  since  he  accepted  the  appointment  of  postmas- 
ter at  Boston.  It  is  true  that  Nathaniel  Greene  had  an  interest  in  a  paper  mill 
for  a  short  time,  at  which  a  portion  of  the  paper  procured  by  the  contrac- 
tor at  Boston  was  manufactured;  but  it  is  clearly  proved,  that  during  the 
continuance  of  his  interest,  (which  ceased  some  time  since,)  more  than 
ordinary  care  and  pa,ins  were  bestowed  in  the  manufacture  and  quality  of  the 
paper  furnished;  and  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  parcel  before  mentioned, 
the  paper  was  of  better  quality  than  the  paper  furnished  from  the  same  mill 
prior  to  that  time. 

Mr.  Emerson,  the  manufacturer,  states  that  both  Nathaniel  Greene  and 
Charles  G.  Greene  were  exact  and  particular  as  to  the  quality  of  the  paper 
fwrnished  to  the  Post  Office  Department.  Calvin  Young,  who  had  a  full 
opportunity  of  judging  of  the  qualities  of  the  articles  furnished  by  the  con- 
tractors, states  that  the  articles  furnished  by  True  and  Greene,  and  by  Charles 
G.  Greene,  were  superior  to  any  articles  of  the  same  kind  which  had  been 
previously  furnished  by  former  contractors;  that  articles  of  this  superior 
quality  continued  to  be  furnished  up  to  the  time  of  taking  his  deposition, 
and  that  the  difference  in  quality  was  so  obvious  as  to  amount  to  twenty 
per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  articles  furnished  by  True  and  Greene,  and  by 
Charles  G,  Greene  over  those  previously  furnish  by  Mr.  Ide. 

William  Parker  and  John  Edwards  prove  that  all  the  twine  furnished  by 
the  present  contractor,  Charles  G.  Greene,  was  of  good  qualit)',  and  greatly 
superior  to  that  furnished  by  Mr.  Ide;  that  it  was  well  suited  to  post  office 
OSes;  that  most  of  it  was  manufactured  by  John  Edwards,  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Boston;  that  the  price  of  the  article  has  varied  from  thirty  to  forty 
cents  per  pound;  and  that  the  last  sales  by  the  manufacturer  were  at  thirty- 
three  and  a  third  cents  per  pound.  The  same  witnesses  also  prove  that  the 
paper  and  twine  procured  by  Horatio  Hill  and  Cyrus  Barton,  of  Concord, 
New  Hampshire,  who  are  also  contractors  for  furnishing  the  department 
with  the  same  articles,  upon  the  same  terms  upon  which  they  were  furnish- 
ed by  Mr.  Charles  G.  Greene,  were  of  good  quality,  and  well  suited  to  the 
purposes  for  which  they  were  intended. 

The  prices  now  allowed  by  the  department  are,  five  dollars  per  ream  for 
wrapping  paper,  and  forty-five  cents  per  pound  for  twine.  The  average 
price  paid  by  the  contractors  for  these  articles  is,  three  dollars  and  fifty 
cents  per  ream  for  wrapping  paper,  and  thirty-three  and  a  third  cents  per 
pound  for  twine.  After  making  a  reasonable  allowance  for  profit,  it  would 
seem  to  us  that  each  might  be  furnished  at  this  time  at  a  lower  rale.  The 
expense  and  trouble,  however,  are  greater  than  such  as  usually  attend  most 
other  branches  of  business  involving  the  same  amount  of  value.  In  the  de- 
position of  Nathaniel  Greene  is  contained  the  following  statement,  in  answer 
to  an  interrogatory  upon  the  subject  in  question:  *' The  contractor  has  to 
keep  a  wareroom,  and  clerk  to  attend  to  the  distribution.  The  printed 
blanks  take  a  good  deal  of  room.  At  other  places  than  Boston  he  has  to 
employ  an  agent  to  whom  he  allows,  by  special  agreement,  ten  per  cent. 


97  [  86  ] 

for  his  trouble.     He  has  lo  pay  cost  of  freight,  premium  of  insurance,  and 
incidental  expenses,  such  as  drayage,  wrappings,  twine,  and  putting  up." 

Wtman's  Case. 
The  committee  have  also  investigated  the  conduct  of  the  postmaster  at 
Lowell,  Massachusetts.  It  appeared  to  the  committee  in  proof  that  he  is 
not  the  proprietor  of  the  newspaper  called  the  "  Lowell  Mercury,"  pub- 
lished at  that  place;  but  that  after  he  became  postmaster  he  performed  the 
duties  and  services  of  editor  of  the  said  paper  without  compensation,  and 
permitted  the  publishers  to  take  the  wrappers  which  had  been  torn  off 
packages  received  at  his  office  to  be  used  as  wrappers  for  the  newspaper. 
We  know  of  no  law  or  regulation  of  the  Post  Office  Department  which  re- 
quires a  postmaster  to  regard  such  w-rappers  in  any  other  light  than  as  waste 
paper,  when  taken  from  pakages  received  at  his  office;  and  whether  he 
burns  them,  sweeps  them  into  the  streets,  or  however  else  he  may  choose  to 
dispose  of  them,  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  public.  The  only  point  in 
which  the  postmaster  seems  to  have  erred  was,  in  not  taking  sufficient  care 
of  the  letters  received  at  his  office  enveloped  in  the  wrappers  in  question, 
by  reason  of  which  negligence,  in  a  few  instances,  letters,  and  in  one  instance 
a  ])ackage  of  letters,  were  left  among  the  envelopes,  and  with  ihem  were 
taken  to  the  printing  office,  but  were,  in  every  instance,  as  soon  as  the  over- 
sight was  discovered,  returned  safely  to  the  post  office. 

Herron's  Case. 

In  September  last,  shortly  after  the  committee  convened  in  this  city,  a 
resolution  was  adopted,  calling  on  the  Postmaster  General  for  the  inspec- 
tion of  all  the  original  letters  and  papers  in  his  office,  concerning  the 
removal  of  a  postmaster  at  Putnam,  Ohio,  and  the  appointment  of  another 
in  his  place.  From  this  resolution  the  only  one  of  us  then  present  dis- 
sented. The  Postmaster  General  declined  a  compliance  with  the  resolution, 
and  gave  his  reasons  at  length  in  a  communication  to  the  committee.  A 
discussion  of  the  question  involved  is  deemed  unnecessary  at  this  time. 
The  right  of  the  Senate  to  inquire  into  tho  causes  which  have  induced  the 
Executive  Department  of  the  Government  to  remove  an  individual  from 
office  is  believed  to  have  been  fully  decided  by  the  Senate  on  the  21st  of 
April;  1830,  on  which  day,  as  appears  from  the  journals,  the  Senate,  by  a 
vote  of  twenty-four  lo  twenty-one,  postponed  indefinitely  resolutions  pro- 
posing a  call  on  the  Executive  for  the  reasons  of  removals  from  office.  On 
the  fifteenth  of  February,  1831,  the  following  proceedings  appear  on  the 
Senate's  journal:  "The  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  motion  sub- 
mitted on  the  3d  instant,  as  modified,  declaring  that  the  select  committee 
appointed  to  inquire  into  the  condition  of  the  Post  Office  Department  are  not 
authorized  to  make  inquir)'  into  the  reasons  which  induced  the  Postmaster 
General  to  make  any  removals  of  his  deputies."  This  resolution  was 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  twenty-four  to  twenty-one.  The  powers  of  that  com- 
mittee appear  to  have  been  the  same  as  those  possessed  by  the  present  commit- 
tee; and  until  that  decision  of  the  Senate  shall  be  changed  by  a  vote 
of  the  same  body,  no  reason  can  be  perceived  why  the  present  com- 
mittee should  deem  themselves  authorized  to  make  the  inquiry  proposed  in 
relation  to  the  postmaster  at  Putnam,  even  if  the  Senate,  under  the  consti- 
tution, possessed  the  power  to  institute  such  an  inquiry. 
13 


t  86  ]  m 

At  Lowell,  Massachusetts,  where  only  two  members  of  the  committee 
attended,  an  interrogatory  was  proposed  to  a  witness,  tending  to  produce 
a  similar  investigation.  This  was  objected  to,  and  since  that  time  no  tes- 
timony touching  removals  from  office  has  been  introduced. 

0.  B.  Brown's  pecuniary  Transactions  with  Edwin  Porter. 

It  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Ed  win  Porter,  (see  Doc.  127,)  that  in  Jan- 
nary,  1832,  he  proposed  to  Mr.  0.  B.  Brown  to  take  an  interest  in  the  contract 
for  carrying  the  mail  between  Mobile  and  New  Orleans.  Mr.  Brown  said  he 
thought  he  would  be  interested  in  the  contract,  and  did  advance  to  Mr. 
Porter  $3,500  in  money,  which  he  stated  belonged  to  Doctor  Jackson,  his 
stepson;  and  that  when  this  advance  was  made,  the  election  was  reserved 
to  Mr.  Brown  to  determine  thereafter  whether  the  money  so  advanced 
should  secure  an  interest  in  the  contract  to  that  amount,  or  should  be  regard- 
ed as  a  loan  to  Porter  on  interest.  In  the  summer  of  1833  Mr.  Brown 
stated  ihat  he  should  regard  the  transaction  in  no  other  light  than  as  a  loan 
on  interest,  from  the  time  the  money  had  been  advanced;  and  Mr.  Porter 
thereupon  gave  his  note  to  Mr.  Brown  for  the  three  thousand  five  hun- 
dred dollars,  dated  back  to  the  time  when  the  money  was  so  advanced.  It 
also  appears  by  Mr.  Porter's  testimony,  that  in  January,  1833,  when  he  was 
about  to  purchase  an  interest,  to  the  amount  of  9,000  dollars,  in  the  contract 
of  R.  C.  Stockton,  from  Fredericksburg  to  the  Natural  bridge,  Virginia,  he 
obtained  from  Mr.  Brown  4,500  dollars,  which  Brown  stated  at  the 
time  belonged  to  the  estate  of  Doctor  Jackson,  for  which  he  was  to  have  an 
interest  to  that  amount  in  that  contract;  that  in  the  summer  of  1833  Mr. 
Brown  also  declined  taking  any  interest  in  this  contract,  and  received  of 
Mr.  Porter  (the  witness)  one  thousand  dollars  for  declining  the  interest  in 
the  line,  and  for  one  year's  interest  of  the  money  advanced  by  him,  and 
took  Porter's  note  for  4,500  dollars,  dated  one  year  after  the  advance  of  the 
money,  and  to  draw  interest  from  its  date.  It  appears  from  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Brown,  (see  Doc.  96,)  in  relation  to  these  two  transactions,  that  when 
he  advanced  to  Mr.  Porter  the  3,500  dollars,  Doctor  Jackson,  then  living,  had 
lately  visited  Mr.  Brown,  and  had  left  in  his  hands  between  four  and  five 
thousand  dollars,  to  be  safely  vested  where  it  should  draw  interest;  that  he  let 
Mr.  Porter  have  the  money,  with  a  reserved  right  to  regard  it  as  an  interest  in 
the  contract  or  as  a  loan  on  interest,  with  a  view  of  that  election  being  made 
by  Doctor  Jackson,  for  whose  benefit  alone  the  money  was  advanced  to  Mr. 
Porter,  and  on  whose  decision  the  matter  would  be  determined.  That  Doctor 
Jackson  soon  thereafter  died,  without  having  had  the  opportunity  to  make 
the  election;  but  left  a  dying  request  that  Mr.  Brown  would  act  the  part  of 
a  guardian  for  his  children,  which  he  (Mr.  Brown)  has  ever  since  done  in 
fact,  though  not  in  form,  not  having  been  legally  appointed  for  that  purpose. 
That  when  he  made  the  other  advance  of  $4,500  to  Mr.  Porter,  he  intended 
it  on  no  other  account  than  for  the  benefit  of  Doctor  Jackson's  heirs;  and 
reserved  for  future  consideration,  whether  it  should  be  an  investment  in  the 
contract  from  Fredericksburg  to  the  Natural  bridge  or  on  interest,  in  either 
case  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  heirs  of  the  deceased;  that  when  he  had  ma- 
turely considered  the  subject,  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be 
inexpedient  for  him,  though  for  the  benefit  of  the  heirs,  to  hold  any  share 
in  property  employed  in  performing  mail  contracts;  and  therefore  declined 
at  a  time  when  he  believed  these  routes  were  profitable,  yielding  about  fifty 
per  cent,  on  the  capital  invested j  that  the  thousand  dollars  which  he  received 


99  C  86  ] 

from  Mr.  Portfer  was  not  received  as  purchase  money  for  an  interest  in  the 
contract,  but  in  consideration  of  the  great  benefit  which  he,  Porter,  had 
derived  from  the  use  of  the  money,  and  was  a  voluntary  payment  on  his 
part;  and  that  the  one  thousand  dollars  so  received  was  applied  by  him, 
Brown,  to  the  benefit  of  Doctor  Jackson's  heirs,  and  not  ia  any  part  to  his 
ov/n  benefit. 

We  are  not  prepared  to  say  that  any  actual  loss  has  resulted  to  the  depart- 
ment from  these  transactions.  There  was,  during  the  time,  no  alteration 
made  in  either  of  the  contracts,  except  that  an  additional  allowance  was 
made  for  increased  expedition  between  Fredericksburg  and  Charlottes- 
ville; but  that  was  made  after  Mr.  Brown  had  left  the  office  of  mail  con- 
tracts, having  been  transferred  to  the  pay  department  of  the  General  Post 
Ofiice;  nor  have  we  had  any  evidence  that  he  had  any  agency  in  making 
the  additional  allowance,  except  certifying,  on  the  application  of  the  con- 
tractor, the  reasons  why  the  additional  service  was  required.  We  consider 
all  pecuniary  interest  in  mail  contracts,  by  persons  engaged  in  the  Gene- 
ral Post  Office,  to  be  improper;  nor  is  it  material  to  consider  whether  the 
prohibitions  of  the  law  of  1825  extend  to  persons  employed  in  the  General 
Post  Office;  the  laws  of  propriety  forbid  such  acts.  The  true  principle  is, 
that  the  officer  who  exercises  powers  under  a  public  trust,  or,  as  in  these 
cases,  the  officer  whose  situation  gives  him  an  influence  in  the  exercise  of 
the  powers  devolving  upon  a  high  functionary,  should  not  place  himself  in 
a  situation  which  might  create  a  bias  on  his  mind  prejudicial  to  the  public 
interest.  This  may  occur  where  a  man's  family  connections  are  concerned, 
though  he  himself  may  have  no  personal  interest  whatever;  and  we  view  all 
such  acts  wholly  inadmissible,  and  that  their  repetition  cannot  be  too  strictly 
guarded  against.  Mr.  Brown  himself  appears  to  have  come  to  the  same 
conclusions,  for  he  placed  his  unwillingnesss  to  hold  an  interest,  even  for 
the  benefit  of  others,  upon  this  ground. 

In  the  account  of  Mr.  Reeside  (seeDoc.  1)  it  was  discovered  that  a  credit  was 
entered  in  his  favor  for  20,000  dollars,  which  the  committee  had  ascertained 
was  on  account  of  his  draft  on  the  department,  and  accepted  by  it,  and  the 
money  applied  to  its  use;  and  no  charge  against  Mr.  Reeside  for  the  acceptance 
or  payment  of  the  draft  by  the  department  appeared  in  the  account.  The 
committee  called  before  them  Mr.  Brown,  the  treasurer  of  the  department, 
and  required  him  to  explain  this  item  of  credit  in  Mr.  Reeside's  account. 
He  stated  that  the  money  upon  the  draft  of  Mr.  Reeside  for  20,000  dollars 
was  for  the  benefit  of  the  department,  and  applied  by  it  to  its  own  use;  that 
the  draft  was  drawn  by  Mr.  Reeside  on  the  29th  of  April,  1S34,  at  six 
months,  and  was  accepted  by  the  department,  and  the  money  raised  on  it; 
that  this  entitled  Mr.  Reeside  to  a  credit  to  the  amount;  that  until  the  draft 
was  paid  the  charge  was  not  made  against  the  drawer,  and  that  this  was  ac- 
cording to  the  regular  mode  of  keeping  the  books;  that  the  reason  why  Mr. 
Reeside  did  not  appear  to  be  charged  in  the  account  furnished  to  the  com- 
mittee by  the  department  was,  that  the  account  did  not  extend  to  a  period 
of  time  late  enough  to  include  it;  nor  was  the  same  yet  entered  upon  the 
books  of  the  department,  because  the  bank  book  including  that  item  had  been 
sent  to  the  bank  at  Philadelphia  for  settlement,  and  had  not  yet  been  return- 
ed. Upon  this  statement  being  made,  Mr.  Brown  retired,  and  the  com- 
mittee proceeded  to  the  examination  of  another  witness.  After  sometime,  and 
before  the  committeee  adjourned,  Mr.  Brown  returned,  and  said  he  had  made 
a  mistake  in  his  testimony  which  he  wished  to  correct.     He  then  stated  that 


[  88  ]  100 

he  had  found  the  original  draft  for  20,000  dollars  drawn  by  Reeside;  that 
two  drafts  were  drawn  on  the  same  day,  and  for  the  same  amount  each;  one 
drawn  by  James  Reeside,  payable  in  three  months,  for  20,000  dollars,  and 
endorsed  by  R.  C.  Stockton;  the  other  drawn  by  R.  C.  Stockton  and  en- 
dorsed by  James  Reeside,  at  six  months;  and  the  first  draft  drawn  by  Mr. 
Reeside  he  produced  to  the  committee,  and  stated  that  the  clerk  who  had  made 
the  entry  had  by  mistake  charged  Mr.  Stockton  instead  of  Mr.  Reeside 
with  the  20,000  dollars;  that  so  soon  as  the  error  had  been  discovered,  he 
(the  witness)  had  caused  the  mistake  to  be  corrected.  Upon  being  interro- 
gated as  to  the  time  when  the  correction  had  been  made,  he  answered  that 
it  was  since  he  had  made  the  former  statement  to  the  committee.  The 
books  were  then  produced  to  the  committee,  and  the  two  book-keepers  ex- 
amined upon  the  subject,  vvho  both  testified  that  they  had  acted  by  Mr. 
Brown's  directions  in  making  the  alterations. 

We  were  and  still  are  of  opinion,  that  although  it  is  the  duty  of  the  offi- 
cers of  the  department  to  correct  all  errors  which  may  be  discovered  in  any 
branch  of  its  business,  yet  that,  while  a  subject  is  under  the  investigation 
of  a  committee  of  Congress,  no  change  or  alterations  in  the  books  should  be 
made;  and  that  explanations,  pointing  out  the  errors  and  how  they  should 
be  rectified,  should  alone  be  relied  on.  We  have  no  reason  to  believe, 
however,  that  the  alteration  made  in  this  instance  produced  any  incorrect 
result. 

The  committee  then  examined  the  books,  and  found  that  the  alteration 
had  been  made,  as  stated  by  the  witnesses.  Witness  Brown  then  produced 
to  the  committee  the  original  memorandum  made  by  him  on  the  30th  of 
April,  1834,  which  contains  the  following  statement  in  relation  to  this  trans- 
action: 

"  Dr.  Western  Bank,  1834,  April  30th. 
Cr.     By  amount  of  loan  this  day  cancelled  $50,000  00 

By  cost  of  exchange  on  4,500  dollars,  check  on  Pitts- 
burg at  5  per  cent     -  -  -  -  -  22  50 


Dr.     R.  C.  Stockton,  for  his  draft  of  2Sth  April, 

at  three  months,  for  this  sum  -  -     $20,000 

To  James  Reeside,  for  his  draft  of  2Sth  April, 
at  six  months  -  .  .  -        20,000 


$50,022  50 


$40,000'' 
And  stated  that  it  was  from  that  memorandum  that  the  clerk  made  the 
original  entries  in  the  books  of  the  department,  and  that  the  memorandum 
was  erroneous.  The  production  of  this  memorandum  and  the  draft  drawn 
by  Mr.  Reeside,  with  the  explanations  given,  in  our  opinion  show  satisfac- 
torily that  the  error  made  in  the  statement  of  Mr.  Reeside's  account  was 
unintentional. 

0.  B.  Brown's  Deposite  in  Bank  of  Maryland. 

From  the  proof  (see  Doc.  128)  it  appears  that  Mr.  0.  B.  Brown,  on  the  3d  of 
May,  1833,  deposited  in  the  Bank  of  Maryland  the  sum  of  two  thousand  dol- 
lars of  his  own  money,  and  received  from  the  cashier  of  said  bank  a  certificate 
for  the  same,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  five  per  cent,  per  annum;  which 


101  [  86  ] 

certificate,  with  the  interest  thereon,  amounting  up  to  the  time  to  $88  61, 
was,  on  the  9th  day  of  September,  1834,  credited  on  the  books  of  said  bank 
to  the  Post  Office  Department,  in  pursuance  of  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  0. 
B.  Brown  to  the  district  attorney  of  Maryland,  dated  the  6th  of  Septem- 
ber, 1834.  At  the  time  of  this  transfer,  debts  on  said  bank  were  worth 
from  thirty-six  to  thirty  seven  cents  in  the  dollar;  but  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment had  previously  borrowed  a  large  sum  of  money  from  said  bank, 
■which  had  not  been  then  paid. 

Improved  Bids  akd  Extra  Allowances. 
The  committee  has  directed  its  attention  to  the  subject  of  the  unusual  nam- 
ber  and  amount  of  extra  allowances  which  have  been  made  to  contractors  for 
carrying  the  mail  within  the  last  few  years.  On  this  subject  the  impres- 
sion has  been  made,  to  some  extent,  that  these  allowances  have  been  made 
without  equivalent  services  having  been  rendered  on  the  part  of  con- 
tractors; or  that  the  services  rendered  were  not  beneficial  to  the  country. 
It  is  true  that  some  of  the  services  required  of  contractors  may  not  have 
been  as  much  demanded  by  the  interest  of  the  community  as  the  officers  of 
the  department  supposed;  and,  in  other  instances,  the  compensation  may- 
have  beea  more  than  adequate  to  the  actual  services  rendered.  That  some 
errors,  in  these  respects,  would  occur  in  a  business  so  extensive  and  com- 
plicated, conducted  and  adjusted  by  so  great  a  number  of  agents,  at  so  many 
different  places,  was  reasonably  to  have  been  expected;  and  the  most  vigi- 
lant officer  may  sometimes  yield  too  readily  to  the  importunities  and  re- 
presentations of  those  applying  for  mail  facilities  and  suggested  improve- 
ments. The  leading  error  in  this  matter  may  be  readily  traced  to  a  distinct 
.cause.  The  department,  in  many  cases,  did  not  advertise  for  a  sufficient 
amount  of  service;  therefore,  when  the  bids  were  accepted,  an  immediate 
increase  of  service,  and  a  corresponding  increase  of  compensation  became 
absolutely  necessary.  Hence,  the  great  difference  which  frequently  appears 
between  the  accepted  bids  and  executed  contracts,  and  sometimes  between 
the  latter  and  the  actual  service  and  compensation,  produced  by  the  orders 
of  the  department,  made  for  improvements  after  the  execution  of  the  con- 
.tracts.  Thiols  not  stated  with  a  view  of  justifying  the  practice  which  has 
prevailed  at  some  of  the  lettings  of  mail  contracts.  Our  own  opinion  is, 
that  the  object  of  the  law  directing  the  Postmaster  General  to  advertise  for 
proposals  for  mail  transportation,  was,  that  full  and  fair  competition  should 
thereby  be  produced  between  those  who  were  desirous  of  embarking  in  that 
line  of  business,  and  it  is  believed,  and  was  believed  by  Congress  in  enact- 
ing it,  that  the  best  way  to  effect  that  desirable  object  was  to  advertise  for 
bids  from  all  competitors,  for  the  kind  and  amount  of  services  required  in 
each  case  by  the  interests  of  the  public,  so  as  to  permit  no  bidder  to  calcu- 
late upon  any  increase  of  emolument  beyond  his  bid.  By  this  means  each 
bidder  would  only  expect  thai  he  was  to  perform  the  services  advertised, 
and  his  bid  would  be  made  accordingly.  In  this  way  the  spirit  of  the  law 
as  well  as  its  letter  would  be  observed;  and  the  competition  contemplated 
by  the  law  would  extend  to  the  whole  service,  and  after-negotiations  be- 
tween the  department  and  contractors  would  seldom  occur.  A  rigid  ad- 
herence to  this  practice  would  at  once  put  a  stop  to  all  those  bids  denomi- 
nated straw  bids,  and  all  those  artful  practices  which  have  been  resorted  to 
after  the  biddings  have  terminated,  by  which  the  lowest  bidders  fail  to  take 
the  contracts  announced  in  their  favor,  and  by  which  the  department  has 


[  86  ]  102 

been,  from  necessity,  thrown  back  to  the  acceptance  of  a  much  higher  bid, 
made  by  an  individual  who  has  himself  contrived,  perhaps,  to  produce  the 

necessity. 

It  may  be  objected  to  this  mode  of  proceeding,  that  the  transportation  of 
the  mail  may  fail  into  incompetent  hands,  and  thereby  much  public  injury 
be  produced.  In  answer  to  this,  it  should  be  recollected  that  the  Postmas- 
ter General  is  not  bound  to  accept  the  lowest  bid.  If  a  sum  wholly  inade- 
quate to  the  service  should  be  offered,  he  would  readily  know  that  the  bid 
had  been  made  by  an  unqualified  person,  or  that  it  was  not  made  in  good 
faith,  and  he  would  of  course  disregard  it.  He  could  in  most  cases  decide 
with  reasonable  certainty,  and  sufficient  accuracy  for  the  furtherance  of  the 
public  service,  what  bid  would  be  most  beneficial  to  the  department,  taking 
into  view  the  difference  in  the  amounts  of  the  several  bids,  the  ability,  cha- 
racter, and  responsibility  of  the  bidders,  together  with  the  various  other 
circumstances  which  would  be  most  likely  to  insure  a  punctual  discharge  of 
the  duties  of  a  contractor,  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  contract.  We  would 
not  be  understood  as  wishing  or  suggesting  that  it  would  be  proper  to 
deprive  the  Postmaster  General  of  the  power  to  change  the  service  of  con- 
tractors after  the  execution  of  the  contract,  and  to  enter  into  other  stipu- 
lations and  engagements.  Our  desire  is  to  diminish  the  occasions  for 
the  exercise  of  such  a  power.  There  would  in  many  instances  be  great 
inconvenience  experienced  by  the  public,  if  this  discretionary  power  be 
taken  away  altogether.  It  would  often  be  found  that  a  change  in  the  times 
of  the  arrivals  and  departures  of  mails  would  be  indispensably  necessary 
to  make  the  proper  connections  between  different  routes;  and  no  precaution 
that  could  be  taken  before  contracts  were  made  would  be  sufficient  to  pre- 
vent the  necessity  of  change;  and  besides,  in  parts  of  the  country  where 
new  settlements  and  villages  are  yearly  growing  up  into  commercial  and  ma- 
nufacturing importance,  a  power  should  continue  to  be  vested  in  the  depart- 
ment to  increase  mail  facilities  between  the  time  of  making  and  the  ending 
of  contracts,  the  duration  of  which  is  four  years.  It  is  further  worthy  of 
note,  that  the  Postmaster  General  might  err  in  judgment,  or  be  deceived  in 
his  information,  and  thereby  be  induced  to  assign  too  much  or  too  litttle 
mail  accommodation  to  a  particular  line  of  communication.  In  such  cases, 
it  would  seem  to  be  highly  proper  that  he  should  have  power  to  correct 
such  errors  as  may  occur  from  these  or  any  other  cause.  We  can  appre« 
hend  no  danger  as  likely  to  arise  from  permitting  the  head  of  the  depart- 
ment to  exercise  such  power,  provided  Congress  shall  make  it  his  duty  to 
report  at  each  session  the  improvements  and  alterations  made,  the  reasons 
for  making  them,  and  the  several  amounts  paid  for  each  respectively. 

It  is  due  to  the  department  that  it  should  be  stated  that,  at  the  two  last 
lettings  of  contracts  efforts  were  made,  and  with  reasonable  and  expected 
success,  to  make  all  contracts  for  the  whole  service  which  it  was  supposed 
would  become  necessary,  so  as  to  obviate,  as  much  as  possibe,  all  necessity 
for  future  changes  in  the  stipulations  between  the  department  and  contractors. 

Robinson's  Case. 

The  contract  of  James  F.  Robinson  for  carrying  the  mail  between  Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio,  and  Georgetown,  Kentucky,  has  been  a  subject  of  re-examina- 
tion by  the  committee.  (See  Docs.  12  to  29  inclusive.)  The  contract  was 
originally  made  to  run  daily  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  at  glOOO  per  annum. 
The  original  schedule  was,  to  leave  Cincinnati  daily  at  4  o'clock  A.  M.,  and 


103 


[86] 


arrive  at  Georgetown  the  same  day  by  G  o'clock,  P.  M. ;  leave  Georgetown 
daily  at  5  o'clock  A.  M.,  and  arrive  at  Cincinnati  the  same  day  b}"-  7  o'clock  P. 
M.  On  the  29th  of  December,  1831,  before  the  service  commenced,  the  con- 
tractor was  directed  to  perform  the  trip  each  way  in  twelve  hours.  Before  the 
former  reports  of  the  committee,  the  Postmaster  General  had  stated  in  his  re- 
port to  the  Senate  that,  to  connect  other  important  routes,  it  became  necessary 
thata  great  part  of  this  service  should  be  performed  in  the  night  instead  of  the 
day  during  one-half  of  the  )-ear;  and  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Brown  to  James 
F.  Robinson  of  the  6th  of  December,  1832,  it  is  stated:  ''To  perfect  the 
connections,  it  was  found  necessary  to  limit  the  time  to  twelve  hours  each 
way^  and  during  the  best  season  of  the  year  for  passengers,  to  run  from 
Cincinnati  to  Geor;^etown  in  the  night  instead  of  the  day."  From  these 
circumstances,  both  the  majority  and  minority  of  the  committee  were  im- 
pressed with  the  belief  that  the  performance,  during  half  the  year,  v/as 
mostly  in  the  night  instead  of  the  day;  and  such  appears  to  have  been  the 
impression  of  the  department.  But  from  the  testimony  now  before  the  com- 
mittee, it  appears  that  but  a  very  small  portion  of  the  service  was  performed 
in  the  night,  perhaps  not  more  than  would  have  been  required  under  the 
original  schedule.  The  increase  of  the  expedition,  therefore,  is  the  only 
ground  on  which  the  additional  allowance  could  be  justified.  The  distance 
is  stated  to  be  seventy-two  miles,  with  the  Ohio  to  be  crossed.  The  original 
contract  time  was  fourteen  hours,  five  and  one-seventh  miles  an  hour,  from 
which  time  must  be  gained  for  changing  horses,  and  opening  and  closing  the 
mails,  and  the  refreshment  of  passengers  on  the  road.  They  were  required 
to  run  through  in  twelve  hours  instead  of  fourteen,  increasing  the  expedition 
to  an  average  of  six  miles  an  hour,  out  of  which  the  same  time  must  be 
gained  for  changing  horses,  and  opening  and  closing  mails,  and  refreshment 
of  passengers. 

The  claim  of  the  contractor  for  increase  of  compensation  appears  to  have 
been  founded  on  the  increase  of  expense  to  which  it  subjected  him;  and 
there  is  a  stipulation  in  all  mail  contracts  in  these  words:  "  U  is  also  agreed 
that  the  Postmaster  General  may  alter  the  times  of  arrival  and  departure 
fixed  by  said  schedule,  and  alter  the  route,  he  making  an  adequate  compen- 
sation for  any  extra  expense  which  may  be  occasioned  thereby;  and  the  Post- 
master General  reserves  the  right  of  annulling  this  contract,  in  case  the 
contractor  does  not  promptly  adopt  the  alteration  required."  In  virtue  of 
the  power  reserved  in  this  article,  the  Postmaster  General  directed  the  in- 
crease of  expedition;  and  in  virtue  of  its  stipulation  the  contractor  claimed  a 
large  increase  of  compensation.  The  Postmaster  General  referred  it  to  expe- 
rienced persons,  in  whose  judgment  and  character  he  had  confidence,  and  thev 
estimated  the  increase  of  expense  at  3,500  dollars.  Their  statement  refers  to 
no  other  expense  than  what  was  required  for  increase  of  expedition,  and  not 
for  any  supposed  change  from  day  to  night  service.  The  Postmaster  Gene- 
ral did  not  finally  agree  to  allow  the  whole  amount  which  the  referees 
awarded,  though  supported  by  other  respectable  names,  but  allowed  an  addi- 
tional compensation  of  3,000  dollars.  We  are  not  inclined  to  set  our  judg- 
ment in  opposition  to  that  of  more  experienced  persons,  who  had  the  fact!" 
before  them  on  which  their  decision  was  made;  we  cannot,  however,  but 
believe  that  the  extra  compensation  was  too  great,  when  compared  with  the 
original  price  and  compensation.     In  the  original  contract  the  contractor 


86  3 


104 


evidently  depended  mainly  on  passengers  for  his  compensation.  The  in- 
creased expedition  would  not  be  likel}"  to  increase  his  number  of  passengers, 
and  for  the  expense  to  which  it  subjected  him  he  could  look  to  the  depart- 
ment alone.  After  it  was  ordered  by  the  Postmaster  General,  the  stipulation 
in  the  contract  required  him  to  defray  that  expense;  and  when  he  had  agreed 
lo  refer  it  to  disinterested  arbiters  to  decide,  appointed  by  himself,  we  do 
not  see  how  he  could  have  well  refused  to  make  the  allowance. 

The  committee  have  taken  depositions  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
whether  the  service  had  been  performed  which  had  been  ordered  by  the 
Postmaster  General,  for  the  increase  of  expedition  on  this  route,  and  among 
others,  the  depositions  of  the  contractor,  and  of  the  postmasters  at  the  endvS 
of  the  route.  It  appears  from  the  testimony  of  John  T.  Johnson,  postmas- 
ter at  Georgetown,  Kentucky,  that  the  mail  departed  from  that  place  at 
various  hours,  from  10  o'clock  at  night  to  6  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Robert 
Read,  the  former  postmaster  at  the  same  place,  states  that,  according  to  his 
recollection,  it  left  Georgetown  at  5  o'clock  A.  M.  William  Burke,  the 
postmaster  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  stites  that  the  mail  in  question  arrived 
upon  an  average  at  his  office  at  from  5  to  6  o'clock  P.  M.  It  further  ap- 
pears from  the  testimony  of  the  same  witness,  that  the  mail  from  Cincinnati 
to  Georgetown  departed  from  his  office  a  part  of  the  time  on  the  same 
evening  of  its  arrival,  and  that  at  other  times  it  left  in  the  morning  at  from 
4  to  5  o'clock.  He  states  further,  that  in  the  winter  the  mail  for  that  route 
was  regularly  made  up  by  sunset,  and  during  the  remainder  of  the  year 
from  7  to  8  o'clock  P.  M.  The  deposition  of  Alexander  Connelly,  the 
postmaster  at  Covington,  opposite  to  Cincinnati,  on  the  Ohio  river,  Kentucky, 
states,  that  the  mail  from  Georgetown  arrived  at  his  office  at  from  5  to  8 
o'clock  P.  M.  From  the  deposition  of  John  T.  Johnson,  above  referred 
to,  who  speaks  of  the  winter  season,  it  appears  that  the  arrival  of  the  Cin- 
cinnati mail  at  his  office  is  generally  after  9  o'clock  P.  M.  Read,  the 
former  postmaster,  says  that  during  the  time  he  was  postmaster,  the  arrival  at 
Georgetown  was  earlier  than  the  time  mentioned  by  Mr.  Johnson,  being 
from  7  to  9  o'clock  P.  M.;  and  Mr,  J.  F.  Robinson  says  Mr.  Johnson's 
deposition  as  to  the  winter  arrivals  is  correct,  according  to  his  recollection, 
and  that  its  arrivals  at  other  seasons  have  been  at  an  earlier  hour. 

From  the  foregoing  testimony  it  may  be  fairly  concluded  that  the  trans- 
portation from  Georgetown  to  Cincinnati  was  substantially  effected  accord- 
ing to  the  orders  of  the  department;  for,  although  the  mail  set  out  from 
Georgetown  at  an  earlier  hour  than  6  o'clock  A.  M.,  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
contractor  or  his  agents  to  remain  at  the  office  in  Georgetown  until  that  time, 
unless  the  mail  could  be  delivered  at  an  earlier  hour;  and  if  other  contrac- 
tors whose  routes  connected  with  this  at  Georgetown,  by  outrunning  their 
time,  brought  the  mail  so  as  to  enable  the  postmaster  to  deliver  it  to  the 
contractor  or  his  agents  on  this  line  at  an  earlier  hour,  the  public  have  sus- 
tained no  inconvenience.  As  to  the  mail  from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  it 
was  not  transported  within  the  time  ordered,  nor  did  there  exist  any  neces- 
sity that  it  should  be. 

It  appears  from  the  testimony  examined  by  the  committee,  that  the  vveighjt 
of  the  mail  from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown  was  from  seventy-five  to  one 
hundred  pounds  upon  an  average,  and  at  times  from  three  to  lour  hundred. 

In  relation  to  the  above  route  from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  one  mem- 


105  [  86   ] 

ber  of  the  minority  of  the  committee  declined  acting,  and  what  is  said  re- 
specting it  is  the  act  of  the  chairman  only. 

Reeside  &Co. — Contracts  prom  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh. 

The  mail  routes  between  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania,  and 
between  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania,  and  Wheeling,  Virginia,  have  been  re- 
investigated by  the  committee.  James  Reeside,  Sam.uel  R.  Slaymaker,  and 
Jesse  Tomlinson  are  the  contractors  on  these  routes.  Tlieir  contract  i.s  dated 
15th  of  October,  1831,  and  it  is  for  the  contractors  to  carry  the  mail  twice 
a  day  in  four  horse  post  coaches  between  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh;  one 
Kne  to  run  through  in  fifty-three  hours,  and  the  other  in  eighty  hours;  and 
between  Pittsburgh  and  Wheeling  daily,  to  run  through  in  fourteen  hour.s. 
On  the  route  between  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh  the  first  daily  mail,  vv^hich 
was  to  run  with  the  greatest  rapidity,  was  required  to  exchange  mails  only 
at  each  county  town  through  which  it  passed.  The  second,  or  less  rapid 
daily  mail,  was  to  cliange  mails  at  every  post  oflice  on  the  road.  The  con- 
tractors were  also  required  to  furnish  armed  guards  for  the  mail  whenever 
required  by  the  department;  and  for  the  whole  service  they  were  to  receive 
827,000  a  year;  the  service  to  commence  on  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  and 
to  continue  four  years.  The  object  of  the  second  line,  betvveea  Philadel- 
phia and  Pittsburgh  appear.s  to  have  been  to  carry  the  way  mail,  by  which 
means  the  more  rapid  line  would  not  be  delayed  in  its  progress  by  stop- 
ping at  all  the  offices  on  the  road,  nor  by  being  burdened  with  the  weiglu 
of  the  wliole  mail  running  between  those  two  cities.  Nothing  is  said  in 
the  cont.f'act  concerning  the  newspaper  mails;  but  tiie  contractor.  Slay- 
maker,  proves  that  it  was  their  intention,  and  that  such  was  the  mutual  un- 
derstanding of  the  parties,  that  the  newspaper  mails  were  to  be  carried  by 
the  second,  or  less  rapid, line;  and  this  allegation  is  admitted  by  ti>e  depari- 
ment  and  proved  by  the  then  superintendent  of  moil  contracts. 

From  the  1st  of  April,  1833,  ihey  Vvore  required  by  ihe  Postmaster 
General  to  carry  all  the  newspapers  in  their  first,  or  more  rapid  line.  Jt 
appears  also  from  the  testimony,  that  the  weight  of  the  mails  had  so  in- 
crea.sed  beyond  their  former  magnitude,  that  one  or  two  days  in  each  week 
they  exceeded  a  ton  weight;  and  when  required  to  be  conveyefl  in  one  J^f.ago, 
especially  in  the  more  rapid  line,  they  excluded  passengers  to  a  consi- 
derable extent.  In  consideration  of  this  increastd  wcigiu,  ;»nd  for  carrying 
the  whole  newspaper  mail,  the  Postmasicr  General  allowed  them,  from  tht: 
1st  of  April,  1S32,  an  additional  compensation  at  the  rate  of  $10,000  pc-r 
annum,  till  the  month  of  December,  1S33,  when  it  was  withdrawn.  Whe- 
ther this  service  was  worth  that  sum  we  are  less  competent  than  the  de- 
partment to  decide  correctly.  If  the  celerity  which  was  given  t«t  this  line, 
as  has  been  alleged,  caused  newspapers  and  other  mailable  nuitter  t'>  come 
upon  it  which  had  before  gone  on  oUier  route-s,  so  as  to  give  to  it  an  ii»orea^;t; 
of  weight  beyond  what  had  been  ccntemijhited  vshen  they  entered  into  the.' 
contract,  it  avo-.'-IiI  ^scem  reasonable  that  they  sliould  receive  an  adequate 
compensation  for  the  same;  and  wlien  net  only  this  increased  weight,  but. 
also  the  whole  newspaper  nicil,  which  had  been  intended  to  be  tninspdried 
in  their  slower  line,  was  reqeii'-'d  to  be  carried  in  liie  niore  lapid  line,  jt  3j)« 
pears  to  us  perfectly  equitabi^  that  t]»e  contractors  should  receive  an  incrra.se 
of  pay.  Tl)e  true  rule  which  should  be  observed  between  the  deparimei)t 
and  contractors  upon  .such  subjects,  it  seems  to  us,  should  i)e  this:  that  the 
increase  of  the  mciil  upon  a  line  of  transportation,  produ'jcd  from  an}  other 
14 


[  86  ]  106 

caulic  than  the  act  of  the  department  Jtself.  should  be  borne  by  the  contrac- 
tor,, as  a  part  of  his  original  undertaking.  But  when  the  department  by  iid 
own  act  throws  a  burden  upon  the  contractor  which  coukl  not  have  been 
foreseen  or  anticipated  by  lam  at  the  tiine  of  making  the  contract,  then  jus- 
tice requires  that  fair  compensation  should  be  made.  The  conveyance  of 
from  a  ton  to  a 'ton  and  a  half  in  weight  in  one  stage  coach,  at  the  rate  of 
a  hundred  and  thirty  miles  a  day,  for  more  than  three  hundred  miles,  must 
of  necessity  subject  contractors  to  great  expense.  This  they  appear  to  have 
done  one  or  two  days  in  each  week  for  a  considerable  time.  'Jo  have  di- 
vided the  mail  between  two  coaches,  and  to  have  given  the  greater  weight 
to  ilie  less  rapid  conveyance,  as  appears  to  have  been  the  meaning  and  in- 
tention of  their  contract,  W'ould  have  rendered  the  service  ijiuch  less  expen- 
sive, and  subjected  them  to  less  sacrifice  by  the  exclusion  of  passengers. 
The  contractors  themselves  estimated  the  increase  of  expense  at  a  much 
higher  rate  than  was  allowed  them;  but  the  additional  sum  fixed  for  the  ser- 
vice appears  to  have  been  what  the  Postmaster  General,  in  the  exercise  of 
his  judgment,  thought  equitable. 

We  would  have  preferred  that  the  written  contract  should  have  specified 
in  what  line  of  stages  th.e  newspapers  were  to  be  carried;  but  still,  if  an 
omission  tsf  that  kind  be  made,  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  parties 
should  be  carried  into  effect,  which  is  all  that  has  been  done  in  this  case. 
We  doubt,  however,  very  much  the  expediency  of  dividing  a  mail  ready  for 
delivery  to  the  contractor,  at  the  time  of  departure,  in  any  case.  It  might 
be  a  better  practice  so  to  make  the  contracts  as  to  require  of  the  contractor  to 
^end  on  the  whole  mail  s.t  the  ?ame  time,  even  should  more  than  one  coach 
or  stage  be  necessary  for  that  purpose.  By  this  means,  those  who  rely  on 
newspaper  intelligence  would  be  placed  on  the  same  footing  with  those  who 
receive  informal  ion  by  letters  from  correspondents. 

l^he  committee,  from  the  circum^tance  of  a  loan  on  interest  having  been 
jnade  to  Mr,  Brown  by  iMr.  Reeside  and  Mr.  Slaymaker  some  six  or  eight 
moiitiis  after  this  allowance  was  made,  entered  into  a  very  close  examination 
and  inquiry  of  the  application  which  they  made  of  the  money  received  ibr  this 
allowance,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  accounted  for  it  to  the  stage  compa- 
ny. While  examining  Mr.  Slaymaker  upon  this  subject  in  Chambersburgh, 
Pa.,o«  the  18th  of  November  last,  this  interrogatory  was  propounded  to  him: 
"In  what  manner  did  you  settle  with  your  other  partners  for  the  allowance; 
state  the  time,  manner,  and  circumstances  ?"  To  this  interrogatory  he  re- 
fused to  answer.  But  a  lew  days  after,  while  the  comimiitee  was  in  session 
in  this  place,  iMr.  Slaymaker  addressed  a  letter  to  the  chairman  of  thecom- 
miitee,  dated  W'ashing'ori  city,  Dfcembcr  the  4th,  183^1,  inrormiiig  him 
that  he  was  then  m  ih.e  city,  and  willing  to  meet  the  committee  and  answer 
the  interrogation  wliich  he  had  before  declined  to  anfwer.  This  circum- 
stance should,  in  our  opinion,  remove  any  unfavorable  inference  which 
might  be  drawn  from  his  first  refusal  to  answer.  Mr.  Slaymaker  has,  sjnce 
the  committee  received  his  note,  been  called  before  them,  and  by  his  testi- 
mony clearly  exonerates  all  persons  employed  in  the  General  Post  Office 
iVom  any  participation  ov  benefit  whatever,  directly  or  indirectl}-,  in  the 
extra  allox^ance  in  question. 

Wliethef  the  settlement  with  the  stage  company  was  equitable  or  not,  we 
do  n^t  caftceive  to  be  a  legitimate  object  of  inquiry  with  the  committee; 
that  belongs  to  another  forum,  if  the  purties  are  dissatisfied.    We  see  nothing 


107  [  80   ] 

m  the  testimony  showinc;  that  any  individual  employed  in  the  department 
has  derived  any  benefit  Irom  the  extra-allowance  made  to  the  contractors. 

Reeside's  Contract  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg. 

The  committee  have  reinvestigated  the  subject  of  the  route  from  Hagers- 
town to  McConnellsburg,  (McConnellstovvn,  Pa.,)  and  we  deem  it  no  part 
of  our  duty  to  determine  whether  Mr,  Reeside  was  mistaken  in  his  bid,  as 
put  in,  or  not,  as  his  intention  to  bid  one  amount  or  another  could  have 
no  legitimate  influence  upon  the  decision  of  the  Postmaster  General.  The 
opinion  of  the  latter  had  to  be  formed  upon  the  evidence  before  him.  The 
following  is  a  copy  of  a  paper  on  file  in  the  department,  written  by  the  then 
superintendent  of  mail  contracts: 

"Mr.  Reeside  sa^s  the  bid  was  put  in  by  mistake  as  will  appear 
from  the  small  sum.  He  intended  to  have  inade  it  il?l,400,  and  to  run  daily, 
and  so  marked  with  his  pencil;  but  the  clerk  who  copied  it  for  him  mis- 
took his  pencil  mark,  supposing  the  I  was  belonging  to  his  dollar  sign,  and 
the  0  on  the  right  hand  he  overlooked,  or  considered  it.  merely  a  point.  The 
Postmaster  General  gave  him  a  verbal  order  to  run  daily,  and  reserved  for 
consideration  the  correction  of  the  error.  He  has  run  from  the  t)eginning 
of  the  year  daily.  Shall  he  be  allowed  to  correct  the  error  and  receive 
Si, 400?     His  distance  is  increased  ten  miles.     No  other  bid." 

Upon  this  statement  the  Postmaster  General  directed  the  supposed  error 
to  be  corrected,  and  allowed  Mr.  Reeside  the  $1,400,  to  take  effect  from 
the  beginning  of  the  contract. 

Upon  this  route  it  appears,  by  the  evidence  of  Josiah  Horton,  (see Doc.  G3,) 
who  seems  to  have  had  a  full  knowledge  of  the  subject,  that  the  mail  was 
carried  the  first  year  daily  in  four  horse  pos^  coaches  by  the  Pennsylvania 
company;  then  until  the  first  of  October,  1833,  it  was  carried  by  Lindsay 
and  McKinstry  in  the  same  way;  from  the  1st  of  October  Slay  maker  and  the 
witness  run  daily,  on  that  line,  but  thinks  the  mail  was  not  carried  in  the  stage 
for  some  time  previous  to  April,  1S34;  but  during  the  whole  of  1833  the 
coaches  run  daily  and  carried  the  mail.  In  January,  1834,  the  coaches  left 
Hagerstown,  and  the  postmaster  refused  to  give  the  mail  at  the  time  the 
coaches  left;  and  from  that  time  to  the  present  the  mail  has  been  carried 
three  times  a  week  on  horseback.  It  should  be  here  remarked  that  the 
coaches  run  generally  by  Greeu  Custle,  which  was  ni)t  on  the  mail  route, 
and  not  by  the  Welsh  Run  post  office,  which  had  to  be  supplied  from  the 
Mercersburg  office.  It  appears  that  the  contractor,  Mr.  Reeside,  was  paid 
$350  per  quaitcr  for  a  portion  of  the  year  1S34,  thus  receiving  pay  for 
transporting  the  mail  in  coaches,  wh:n  it  vvas  carried  on  horseback  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  time. 

Reeside's  Contract  from  Bedford  to  Washington,  Pa. 
The  route  from  Bedford  to  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  No.  1,198,  was 
given  by  contract  to  James  Ree;<ide,  the  mail  to  be  carried  three  times  a 
week  in  four-horse  post  coaches,  (.listance  one  hundred  and  six  miles,  at 
$725  per  quarter;  the  service  to  commence  on  the  1st  of  January,  1832. 
Before  the  service  commenced,  he  was  directed  to  run  daily  at  a  pro  rata 
allowance,  which,  for  the  four  additional  trips  every  week,  increased,  his 
pay  to  81,691  67  per  quarter.  The  object  of  this  improvement  appears  to 
have  been  to  give  a  daily  mail  on  the  most  direct  route  between  Philadel- 
phia and  Wheeling.  The  contractor  appears  to  have  commenced  the  3tr- 
vice  agreeably  to  his  eontract  and  thp  it 


[ 86    ]  108 

continued  till  the  following  September.  From  that  time,  as  is  shown  by  the 
testimony  of  William  Lewis,  (see  Doc.  62,)  who  superintended  the  transpor- 
tation of  the  mail  a  portion  of  the  time,  and  for  a  part  of  it  acted  as  sub-con- 
tractor, the  line  has  been  a  tri-weekly  one  to  the  time  of  taking  his  deposition. 
So  it  appears  that  this  line  was  daily  for  nearly  the  three  firsl  quarters  of  the 
first  year,  and  tri-weekly  the  remainder  of  the  time.  The  account  of  Mr, 
Reeside,  furnished  by  the  department,  shows  that  the  contractor  has  been 
paid  ^1,691  67,  from  the  1st.  day  of  January,  1832,  to  the  1st  day  of  De- 
cember, 1S33,  that  sum  being  the  price  of  a  daily  line  on  said  route. 
The  daily  service  ceased  on  the  1st  of  September,  1832,  and  from  thattime 
to  the  first  of  December,  1S33,  he  has  received  at  the  rate  of  §966  67  per 
quarter  more  than  the  sum  to  which  he  was  entitled. 

Reeside's  Contract  from  Baltimoiie  to  Chamberssuhg. 

The  route  No.  1,3SS,  between  Baltimore  and  Chambersburg,  Pennsyl- 
vania, constitutes  a  part  of  the  direct  line  between  Baltimore  and  Pittsburgh. 
It  was  advertised  in  1831  to  run  daily  both  ways,  seventy-seven  miles,  in 
four  horse  post  coaches;  to  leave  Baltimore  daily  at  4  A.  M.,  and  arrive  at 
Chambersburg  the  same  day  by  9  P.  M.;  leave  Chambersburg  daily  at  2 
A.  ]M.,  and  arrive  at  Baltimore  same  day  by  S  P.  M.;  making  seventeen 
hours  one  way  and  eighteen  hours  the  other  way.  James  Reeside  appears 
to  have  been  the  onl}-  person  who  bid  for  this  route.  His  proposal  contained 
two  propositions:  one  was  to  conve}'  the  mail  as  advertised  for  ■§1,900  a  year; 
the  other  was  to  leave  Baltimore  daily,  after  the  arrival  of  the  steamboat 
from  Pl'.iladelphia;  and  arrive  at  Chambersburg  same  day  in  time  to  connect 
with  the  mail  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh,  for  $3,495  a  year.  The  con- 
tract was  made  with  him.,  dated  "ISth  of  October,  1831,  to  take  effect  from 
the  1st  of  January,  1S32,  and  to  continue  four  years,  at  $1,900  a  year,  to 
carry  the  mail  as  advertised.  On  the  29th  of  December,  1S31,  before  the. 
service  comnjenced  under  the  contract,  the  schedule  was  so  altered  as  to 
embrace  his  second  proposition,  which  entitled  him  to  the  sum  stipulated  in 
such  case,  ^3,49')  per  annum.  The  alteration  noted  on  the  contract  is  thus: 
V  Leave  r>aliiniore  daily  at  1  A.  M.,  and  arrive  at  Chambersburg  same  day 
h}'  3  P.  M.  Leave  Chambersburg  dail}-  at  3  A.  JNL,  and  arrive  at  Balti- 
more same  day  by  5  P.  M."  This  was  an  increase  in  the  expedition  of 
three  hours  each  way;  and  if  it  would  require  but  one  additional  team  each 
way,  it  would,  according  to  the  estimate  of  expenses  on  other  routes,  have 
amounted  to  a  greater  sum.  The  object  appears  to  have  been  to  form  such 
a  connexion  with  the  mail  from  Pliiladeiphia  via  Chambersburg  to  Pitts- 
burg, as  to  prevent  any  detention  of  the  mail  from  Baltimore  at  Chambers- 
burg, and  .so  as  to  deliver  the  niJiil  from  Baltimore  one  day  earlier  at  Pitts- 
burg than  wliat  its  delivery  would  have  been  if  it  had  run  under  the  schedule 
as  advertised.  On  the  12ih  of  September,  1S32,  the  schedule  was  again 
altered  by  orde;  of  ilic  PosMnaster  General,  so  as  to  leave  Baltimore  daily 
at  7  A^  M.  aiid  arrive  at  Chambersburg  the  same  day  by  S  P.  M.  Leave 
Chambersburg  by  S  A.  M.,  a:id  arrive  at  Baltinriore  by  4  P.  M.;  but  if  the 
maii  from  Pittsburg  had  not  orrivud  at  Chambersburg  by  3  A.  M.,  then  to 
dehiy  the  departure  till  after  its  arrival,  though  it  might  be  till  S  or  9  A.  M,, 
and  to  arrive  at  Baltimore  in  thirteen  hours.  This  last  alteration  required 
an  increased  expedition  of  one  hour  one  way,  and  two  hours  the  other  way, 
teyond  the  shortest  time  which  had  been  before  prescribed;  but  for  this  last 
increase  of  expedition,  the  contractor  does  not  appear  to  have  received  any 

Liiiop&l  comnenaation.     The  time  which  he  was  authorized  to  occupy  io 


109  [  86  ] 

junning  from  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  under  the  schedule  which  entitled 
him  to  the  highest  compensation,  was  fourteen  hours,  which  would  be  from 
7  A.  M.  to  9  P.  M.;  and  from  the  testimony  of  John  Sidcrs  it  appears 
that  the  mail  sometimes  arrived  at  Chambersburg  as  early  as  6  or  7  P.  M., 
but  was  frequently  later,  and  frequently  from  10  to  11  P.  M.  Itappears 
from  the  testimony  of  John  Findlay,  postmaster  at  Chambersburg,  that  the 
fast  line  from  Philadelphia,  when  it  first  run,  arrived  at  his  ofiice  at  10  P.M. 
It  was  then  changed  as  to  the  time  of  its  departure  from  Pliiisdelphia, 
and  afterwards  arrived  at  his  ofBce  from  4  to  8  A.  M.  So  long  as  the  Phi- 
ladelphia mail,  by  the  arrangement  ol  the  schedule  on  that  line,  arrived  at 
Chambersburg  at  10  P.  M.,  it  was  proper  to  require  the  Baltimore  mail  to 
arrive  at  9  P.  M. ,  80  as  to  prevent  any  delay  on  the  main  line.  But  when 
the  change  took  place  in  the  Philadelphia  line,  so  that  the  mail  from  that 
place  arrived  at  Chambersburg  from  4  to  S  A.  M.,  there  was  no  occasion  for 
the  increased  expedition  provided  for.  It  does  not  appear  from  the  testi- 
mony that  the  transportation  of  the  mail  on  the  route  from  Baltimore  to 
Chambersburg  has  been  effected  with  any  regularity. 

Bennktt'sCase. 

The  committee  have  re-examined  the  case  of  route  No.  114S,  between 
Bellefonte  and  Meadville,  Pennsylvania,  and,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  original 
bids  and  contract,  we  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  report  made  by  the  minority 
of  the  committee  to  the  Senate  at  the  last  session,  the  correctness  of  which 
we  have  found  no  reason  to  doubt;  and  in  addition  thereto,  now  state  that 
the  extra  allowance  first  made  on  said  route  was  made  by  the  late  Post- 
master Genera],  at  the  rate  of  i?500  per  annum,  for  an  improvement  on  said 
route,  which  allowance,  by  his  order,  was  for  one  year;  that  the  present 
Postmaster  General  only  renewed  the  order  of  his  predecessor,  making  the 
same  allowance  for  the  same  service.  It  also  appears,  from  the  testimony  of 
Benjamin  Bennett,  fsee  Doc.  30,)  that  after  the  last  lettlngs,  neither  Piatt  & 
Co.,  in  whose  favor  the  said  route  was  declared  by  the  Postmaster  General,  nor 
any  other  person,  except  himself  and  his  brother,  John  Bennett,  ever  placed 
any  stock  on  said  route  for  (ransnorli.ng  the  mail;  that  he  and  his  broiher 
took  the  contract,  and  were  equally  interested  in  it;  that  he  knows  of  no 
connexion  whatever  between  a  newspaper  establishment  at  Meadvilie  and 
either  the  extra  allowance  or  the  contract.  It  further  appears  front  the 
testimony,  that  John  Bennett,  in  his  lifetime,  was  part  owner  of  a  news- 
paper printing  establishment  at  Meadvilie;  and  that  the  newspaper  had 
been  discontinued  £  short  time  before  he  became  interested  in  the  piinting 
establishment,  and  that  there  was  no  change  in  the  political  character  of  the 
newspaper  for  some  time  before  its  discontinuance,  and  after  it  went  into 
operation,  when  Mr.  Bennett  was  interested. 

From  an  impartial  view  of  all  the  testimony,  v/e  are  of  opinion  that  there  is 
no  foundation  for  the  slightest  imputation  against  the  department  in  reference 
to  the  extra  allowance,thecontract,or  the  newspaperestablishmentinquestior. 

Reeside's  Contract  from  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap. 
For  the  transportation  of  the  mail  on  routes  Nos.  1215  and  1230,  from  Cum- 
berland to  Blair's  Gap,  a  contract  (see  Doc. 71)  was  entered  into  on  the  12th  of 
March,  1832,  for  carrying  the  mail  three  times  a  week,  in  four  horse  post 
coaches;  price  per  quarter  iS  1, 125.  On  the  25th  of  February,  1833,  the  contrac- 
tor was  directed  to  run  daily,  at  an  allowance /»rn?y//f/,  amounting  to  g2,625 
per  quarter,  from  the  day  of  ,  1833,     On  the  1st  of  De- 

cember, 1S33,  the  last  order  was  rescinded,  and  one  month's  extra  pay  al- 


[86  ]  110 

lowed.  In  October,  1834,  route  No.  1215  was  reduced  to  a  horse  mail  of 
once  a  week;  and  No.  1230  tea  horse  mail  twice  a  week;  amount  of  de- 
duction S3, 995,  from  the  15th  of  October,  1S34.  It  appears  from  the 
testimony  of  John  W.  Weaver,  (see  Doc.  64,)  that  he  carried  this  mail  from 
the  25th  of  April,  1832,  on  horseback,  three  times  a  week  from  Cumberland 
(o  Bedford,  until  some  time  in  July  of  the  same  year;  then  it  was  carried  in 
six  passenger  coaches,  part  of  the  way  with  four,  and  part  with  two  horses, 
until  the  latter  part  of  October,  from  which  time  he  carried  it  three  times  a 
week  on  horseback  until  the  first  of  April,  1833.  From  the  testimony  of 
William  Lewis,  (see  Doc.  62,)  it  appears  that  from  about  the  middle  of  May, 
1833,  it  was  carried  in  four  and  two  horse  coaches,  and  was  a  tri- weekly  line. 
John  Piper  (see  Doc.  66,)  testifies  that  after  Weaver  ceased  to  carry  it,  Mr. 
Reeside,  the  contractor,  took  charge  of  the  line  himself,  and  the  mail  was, 
in  1833,  carried  three  times  a  week,  in  four  horse  coaches,  for  about  eight 
months,  and  until  the  road  became  bad.  During  the  next  four  months,  ihe 
mail  was  carried  in  two  horse  coaches,  in  barouches,  and  occasionally  on 
horseback.     Mr.  Reeside  had  directed  that  it  should  be  carried  daily. 

The  department  appears  to  have  paid  to  the  contractor,  regularly,  ^1,125 
per  quarter,  according  to  the  original  contract,  to  the  close  of  the  year 
18J3;  and  also  the  sum  of  $2,434  52  for  the  extra  service  which  was  or- 
dered on  the  25th  of  February,  1833. 

It  appears  from  thp  testimony,  that  the  original  contract  was  not  complied 
with  during  the  first  year  in  the  mode  of  transportation,  the  mail  having 
been  carried  on  horseback  a  large  portion  of  that  time.  A»  to  the  addi- 
tional service  ordered  in  February,  1833,  it  does  not  appear  that  any  part 
of  it  was  performed,  although  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Postmaster  Gene- 
ral had  any  information  that  the  extra  services  ordered  had  not  been  ren- 
dered; and  although  the  contractor  may  not  have  known  that  his  agents  or 
sub-contractors  had  failed  to  execute  his  order  given  to  them,  still  justice 
requires  that  the  whole  amount  allowed  for  the  extra  services  not  per- 
formed, as  well  as  the  month's  pay  for  the  discontinuance,  should  be  re- 
funded to  the  department,  out  of  the  pay  upon  the  current  contracts  of  the 
contractor,  Mr.  Reeside,  W^e  are  of  opinion,  that  in  all  cases  in  which 
extra  services  upon  existing  contracts  are  ordered,  the  postmasters  on  the 
routes  so  improved  should  be  furnished  with  an  amended  schedule  by  the 
department,  so  as  to  enable  them  to  report  to  it  any  nonperformance  of  its 
orders;  and  that  in  such  cases  the  orders  of  the  department  should  not  alone 
be  relied  on  to  prove  that  the  services  have  been  rendered. 

TiLLOw's  Case. 
The  mail  route  between  Newark  and  Paterson,  in  New  Jersey,  has  been 
a  subject  of  investigation.  (See  Doc.  31  &  32.)  This  is  a  part  of  route  No- 
956  as  it  was  advertised  in  183  J .  The  whole  route  was  from  Newark  by 
Belleville,  Acquackanock,  Paterson,  Pompton,  Newfoundland,  Stockholm, 
and  Hamburg,  to  Deckertown,  fifty  miles,  to  run  twice  a  week  in  stages. 
The  contract  was  made  with  J.  J.  Roy,  Daniel  Searle,  Miller  Horton,  J. 
H.  Avery,  J.  C.  Horton,  and  Stockton  and  Stokes  (though  it  appears  to 
have  been  signed  only  by  Daniel  Searle,  Miller  Horton,  and  J.  C.  Horton) 
for  this  and  three  other  routes,  with  alterations  from  the  advertisements, 
that  is  to  say,  No.  953,  from  New  York  by  Morristown,  N.  Jersey,  to 
Milford,  Pennsylvania,  seventy-five  miles,  three  times  a  week,  in  four 
horse  coaches.  No.  956  so'  altered  as  to  run  from  New  York  by  Pater- 
son, Pompton,  Newfoundland,  Stockholm,  Hamburg,  and  Deckertown,  to 
Milford,  Pa.,  three  times  a  week  in  four  horse  post  coaches;  and  from  New- 


Ill  [  se  J 

ark  by  Belleville  to  Paterson,  twice  a  week  in  two  horse  stages;  and  that 
part  of  the  route  as  altered  between  New  York  and  Patterson  to  run  daily. 
No.  1035,  from  Milford,  Pa.,  to  Owego,  N.  York,  one  hundred  miles, 
six  times  a  week,  in  four  horse  post  coaches;  and  No.  1110,  from  Northum- 
berland, Pa.,  by  Wilkesbarre  to  Dundaff  (where  it  intersects  No.  1035) 
ninety-six  miles  daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  for  Si 3,975  a  year. 
That  part  of  No,  956  which  lies  between  Newark  and  Paterson,  fifteen 
miles,  to  be  carried  twice  a  week,  would,  at  tlie  rate  allowed  for  the  whole 
contract,  amount  to  about  5S230  a  year.  Mr.  Roy,  who  had  the  part  of  the 
contract  which  embraced  that  space,  employed  William  Tillou,  of  Newiirk, 
to  perform  the  service  for  §200  a  year.  The  contract  commenced  on  the 
1st  of  .lanuary,  1832,  to  continue  for  the  usual  period  of  four  years.  In 
February,  1832,  whilst  Mr.  Roy,  by  his  sub  contractor,  Mr.  Tillou,  was 
performing  the  service  under  his  contract,  a  petition  was  sent  to  the  Post- 
master General  setting  forth  the  importance  of  a  daily  mail  between  tho^e 
two  places,  and  proposmg  that  John  Fine  should  be  employed  to  cany  it, 
who,  the  petitioners  stated,  would  perform  the  service  for  $200  a  year. 
The  Postmaster  General  directed  the  mail  to  be  transported  on  that  part  of 
the  route  from  that  time  to  the  first  of  May  following,  three  times  a  week, 
and  from  the  1st  of  May  six  times  a  week;  and  made  a  pro  rata  allowance 
for  the  same. 

The  only  question  is,  whether  the  Postmaster  General  should  have  super- 
seded the  contract  with  Mr.  Roy  and  given  it  to  another  who  had  not  bid 
for  it  at  its  letting;  or  have  contracted  with  thai  other  person  to  perform 
the  additional  service  on  the  same  route  because  he  nuw  proposed,  after 
the  contract  was  made,  to  perform  it  at  a  lower  rate.  The  contract  was  in 
existence,  and  while  it  was  faithfully  performed  on  the  part  of  the  contrac- 
lor,  we  know  of  no  principle  by  wl^ich  he  could  be  justly  deprived  of  it. 
The  same  rule  also  governs  the  Postmaster  General,  we  understand,  in  re- 
gard to  increased  number  of  trips  on  a  route  where  a  contract  exists.  It  is 
not  customary  to  make  a  contract  with  another  person  to  carry  a  mail  on  a 
route  which  is  already  under  contract,  but  to  require  the  contractor  to  per- 
form such  additional  service  as  may  be  necessary,  provided  he  will  do  so  at 
a  rate  not  exceeding  a /?ro  ra/a  allowance  for  such  service.  This  kind  ot 
protection  the  Postmaster  General  appears  to  consider  due  to  contractors, 
and  that  the  anticipation  of  it  induces  them  to  take  contracts  much  lower 
than  they  would  do  if  they  were  liable  to  bp  superseded  by  an  opposition 
that  might,  at  any  time,  run  upon  the  route;  or  if  such  opposition  was 
likely  to  be  encouraged  by  the  department,  with  contracts  to  carry  the 
mail  upon  the  same  road. 

Reesidk's  Contract  from  New  York  to  Philadelphia. 

Route  No.  951,  from  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  was  let  in  the  fall  of 
1831  to  James  Reeside,  the  then  contractor  on  the  route.  By  this  contract 
Mr.  Reeside  was  to  transport  the  mail  by  Jersey  c?ty,  (New  Jersey,)  Newark, 
Elizabethtown,  Rahway,  New  Brunswick,  Kingston,  Princeton,  Trenton, 
Morrisville,  (Pennsylvania,)  Tullytown,  Bristol,  Andalusia,  Holmesburg, 
and  Frankford,  to  Philadelphia,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  as  advertised,  lor 
the  sum  of  i56,000  per  annum;  the  expense  of  carrying  the  mail  across  the 
Hudson  river  to  be  defrayed  by  the  department.  It  was  also  provided  in 
the  contract  (see  Doc.  No.  95)  that  increased  speed  should  be  given  to  the 
mail,  so  that  it  should  run  through,  from  city  to  city,  in  thirteen  hours; 
and  a  second  daily  mail  should  be  run  from  city  to  city  in  steam  boats  and 


[  86  ]  112 

stages,  if  required  by  the  Postmaster  General,  for  which  and  for  providing 
armed  guards,  when  required,  the  contractor  was  to  receive  §13,000;  and 
to  keep  up  the  second  daily  mail  in  the  season  of  the  year  when  steamboats 
did  not  run,  the  further  compensation  was  provided  of  $1,500  per  annum. 

During  the  sessions  of  Congress  it  had  been  deemed  necessary  by  the  de- 
partment to  run  an  additional  mail  line  from  Baltimore  to  l-'hiladelphia, 
which  was  done  by  the  way  of  Lancaster,  to  carry  a  portion  of  the  mail 
matter  too  heavy  for  one  line,  and  to  give  to  Philadelphia  the  benefit  of  a 
second  daily  mail  from  the  city  of  Washington.  It  was  deemed  expedient  to 
extend  the  advantage  of  this  arrangement  to  New  York,  particularly  so,  as 
it  gave  the  morning  papers  published  in  that  city  Washington  intelligence 
much  in  advance  of  the  ordinary  mail.  A  third  mail  was  therefore  or- 
dered to  be  run  on  route  No.  951,  in  this  winter  and  during  the  suspension 
of  steamboats,  in  connexion  with  the  line  from  Baltimore,  by  way  of  Lan- 
caster, called  an  Express  Mail.  Mr.  Reeside  was  allowed  for  this  the  sum  of 
^3,150  per  annum. 

It  should  be  remarked,  that  the  original  contract  was  for  S6,000  a  year, 
and  the  mail  was  to  run  daily,  and  ail  the  offices  on  the  route  to  be  supplied 
by  it.  This  service  was  evidently  less  than  the  interest  of  the  community 
required,  and  is  one  of  the  cases  embraced  in  the  remarks  heretofore  made,  in 
which  the  adverlisements  inviting  proposals  did  not  call  for  sufficient  service. 

In  the  proposal  and  contract  the  Postmaster  General  is  authorized  to 
order  an  increased  expedition,  so  as  to  go  from  city  to  city  in  thirteen  hours; 
and  to  put  on  a  second  daily  mail  between  the  two  cities,  to  run  in  steam- 
boats and  stages,  and  to  have  the  mail  protected  by  an  armed  guard,  for  the 
additional  sum  of  $13,000;  and  for  a  further  sum  of  Sl,500  to  send  the 
second  daily  mail,  during  the  suspension  of  steamboat  navigation,  in  four 
horse  post  coaches.  This  service  was  ordered  by  the  Postmaster  General 
from  the  commencement  of  the  contract.  We  do  not  consider  it  too  much 
for  the  route  lying  between  the  two  great  cities  of  New  York  and  Philadel- 
phia. Less  than  this,  between  those  important  points,  will  not  prevent  a 
resort  to  the  establishment  of  private  mails. 

From  the  whole  evidence, (see  Doc.  No.  92  to  No. 98,)  we  are  of  opinion  that 
the  contractor  has  substantially  executed  the  orders  of  the  Postmaster  General. 

It  appears  by  a  report  from  the  department,  that  in  March,  1833,  the 
Postmaster  General  determined  to  expedite  the  mail  between  Washington 
and  New  York,  and  between  that  place  and  the  eastern  cities,  with  a  view  to 
put  down  private  mails,  and  to  do  away  the  necessity  of  employing  a  pub- 
lic express  for  that  purpose,  and  as  had  been  done  in  the  preceding  winter. 
It  was  found  necessary  to  run  the  mail  from  Philadelphia  to  NeAv  York  in 
twelve  hours,  in  bad  roads  as  well  as  go.od.  For  this  purpose  the  contractor 
was  engaged  to  perform  the  service  within  that  time;  but  the  execution  was 
considered  impracticable,  if  he  were  compelled  to  stop  at  the  numerous 
post  offices  on  the  route,  and  therefore  an  additional  line  was  established 
for  the  purpose  of  supplying  them.  This  arrangement  rendered  unnecessary 
the  express  mail  before  spoken  of.  This  additional  mail  cost  the  depart- 
ment ^5,125,  which  is  Si, 975  more  than  the  express  mail,  which  was  in 
consequence  ordered  to  be  discontinued.  By  this  latter  arrangement,  the 
mail  was  despatched  from  Washington  to  New  York  in  fifteen  hours  less 
time  on  the  winter  arrangement  than  before,  and  a  day  was  gained  in  the 
expedition  of  the  southern  mail  to  Boston  and  Albany,  and  the  numerous 
points  beyond.     This  requirement  of  extraordinary  speed  on  route  No.  95U 


113  [  S6  ] 

had  the  effect  of  inducing  the  contractor  to  arrange  with  the  Camden 
and  Amboy  Railroad  Company  for  the  transportation  of  the  city  mails,  and 
the  great  eastern  and  southern  mails  passins;  through  New  Jersey;  and 
thereby  secured  to  the  service  of  the  mail  all  the  expedition  that  could  be 
given  by  the  railroad,  which  had  been  completed  and  put  in  operation 
since  the  making  of  the  mail  contracts  for  that  section  of  the  United  States- 
It  is  of  the  greatest  importance  that  the  movement  of  the  mail  should  be  as 
rapid  as  that  of  travellers,  especially  between  large  cities  like  Philadelphia 
and  New  York.  It  is  apparent  that  much  difficulty  ma}'  arise  in  effecting 
this,  where  a  change  in  the  mode  of  travel  has  taken  place  subsequently  to 
the  contracts  being  let  for  four  years,  as  in  the  event  of  the  construction  of 
a  railroad  respecting  which  there  are  no  general  provisions  of  law,  as  in  the 
case  of  steamboats.  In  this  instance,  the  running  of  two  lines  of  mails  on 
the  railroad  was  accomplished,  and  z  daily  line  of  stage  mail  continued  to 
the  towns  situated  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  on  the  old  route, 
at  an  additional  cost  of  moderate  amount,  compared  with  the  amount  'paid 
<3n  the  contract,  or  tlie  rate  of  compensation  asked  by  the  railroad  com- 
panies for  transporting  the  mail,  and  not  an  unreasonable  price,  in  our 
judgments,  for  the  advantages  secured  by  the  improvement. 

It  should  be  noticed,  that  four  daily  mails  are  named  by  witnesses  as 
having  been  run  by  the  contractor  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia; 
only  three  were  ordered  and  paid  for  by  the  department.  The  fourth  was 
carried  for  the  contractor's  own  convenience,  and  was  made  up  of  mail 
matter  properly  belonging  to  one  of  the  others. 

It  appears  from  the  testimony,  "(see  Doc.  No.  123, 121, 122,  and  97,)  that  in 
in  the  beginning  of  the  3'ear  1S33,  such  was  the  excited  and  interesting  state 
of  public  affairs,  that  the  editor  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce,  a  newspaper 
printed  in  the  city  of  New  York,  felt  justified  at  his  own  expense  to  esta- 
blish an  express  to  run  from  Philadelphia  to  the  city  of  New  York,  and  by 
this  means  obtained  the  intelligence  earlier  than  its  arrival  in  the  regular 
course  of  the  mail.  This  express  had  been  in  operation  for  several  days, 
and  by  reason  of  it  the  editor  of  that  paper  obtained  information  at  an  ear- 
lier period  than  the  other  editors  in  the  city  of  New  York.  As  was  to  be 
expected,  this  produced  dissatisfaction,  that  a  private  individual  could  ob- 
tain intelligence  for  himself  and  patrons  before  the  Government  furnished 
it  to  the  eitizens  generally.  In  this  state  of  things  the  Postmaster  General 
•deemed  it  his  duty  to  employ  an  express  mail,  which  should  convey  intel- 
ligence as  rapidly  as  it  could  be  furnished  by  the  individual  alluded  to.  He 
accordingly  engaged  Mr.  Reeside,  an  efficient  contractor,  to  perform  this 
special  service,  promising  to  give  him  a  fair  compensation  for  the  same  so 
long  as  it  should  be  deemed  necessary  for  the  Government  express  to  be  run. 

Doubts  have  been  expressed  as  to  the  propriety  of  this  measure  as  adopted 
by  the  Postmaster  General.  Although  we  are  inclined  to  the  opinion,  that 
celerity  in  the  transportation  of  the  mail  has  been  too  much  regarded  in 
some  cases,  yet,  in  this  instance,  the  object  of  the  Department  was  laudable 
and  praiseworthy.  It  should  not  be  permitted  that  an  individual  should 
establish  a  mode  of  communication  and  continue  it,  by  which  intelligence 
should  be  received  and  acted  upon  by  him  before  the  community  at  large 
can  have  the  benefit  of  it  through  the  medium  of  the  Government  mails. 
If  such  a  measure  on  the  part  of  an  individual  cannot  be  arrested  by  law, 
the  Government  should  not  hesitate  to  adopt  means,  although  of  an  expen- 
sive character,  to  place  the  community  generally  in  possession  of  the  same 
15 


[  86  ]  114 

intelligence  at  as  early  a  period  as  practicable.  It  should  defeat  the  efforts 
of  individuals  to  exercise  functions  and  powers  belonging  exclusively  to 
itself;  especially  where  such  efforts  are  attended  with  ihe  effect  of  giving 
thenn  advantages  over  the  rest  of  the  community.  We  therefore  conclude 
that  it  was  proper  in  tl)e  Post  Office  Department  to  put  this  express  mail 
into  operation.  And  we  have  not  heard  of  any  attempt  to  set  up  a  private 
express,  either  for  purposes  of  speculation  or  any  other,  since  the  one  made 
by  the  editors  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce;  and  it  is  hoped  that  the  mea- 
sures adopted  by  the  Postmaster  General  in  this  instance  will  teach  all  our 
citizens  the  inutility  of  such  attempts. 

'  The  next  inquiry  which  presents  itself  for  consideration  is,  whether  the 
Postmaster  General  has  acted  judiciously  in  effecting  the  object  in  question. 
He  attempted  to  make  a  contract  for  a  specific  sum  by  his  agent  in  New 
York.  The  sum  demanded  was  more  than  the  agent  thought  a  fair  equiva- 
lent for  the  service.  He  then  directed  Mr.  Reeside  to  perform  it,  engaging 
that  he  should  be  fairly  compensated  for  the  service.  The  contractor  (Ree- 
side) commenced  the  service,  and  continued  it  until  it  became  known  at 
the  department  that  the  editor  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce  had  ceased  to 
run  his  express.  By  contract,  Mr.  Reeside  was  to  run  the  distance,  nine- 
ty miles,  in  six  hours  each  way.  This,  according  to  the  testimony,  would 
require  that  no  horse  should  be  run  more  than  about  five  miles  at  one  time. 
Two  horses  were  necessary  to  carry  the  mail;  of  course  it  would  require 
seventy-two  horses  for  each  day's  service,  exclusive  of  those  which  had  to 
be  kept  on  the  line  to  supply  the  places  of  those  that  might  be  disabled  by 
the  service.  The  department  had  stipulated  to  pay  a  fair  equivalent  for  the 
service,  and  the  contractor  (Mr.  Reeside)  brought  forward  the  testimony  of 
three  witnesses,  verified  by  their  oaths,  showing  that  they,  the  witnesses, 
had  been  for  several  years  engaged  in  business  of  that  kind;  and  that  from 
their  knowledge  of  the  services  performed  as  set  forth  in  Mr.  Reeside's 
account,  they  considered  the  charges  to  be  entirely  fair  and  reasonable,  and 
no  more  than  a  just  renumeration  for  his  services  and  the  necessary  expenses 
attending  them.  We  are  ignorant  of  the  characters  of  these  witnesses,  one 
of  whom  is  well  vouched  for,  and  it  is  but  fair  to  presume  that  the  depart- 
ment was  satisfied  of  the  respectability  of  all  before  the  account  was  allowed. 
The  account  charges  one  dollar  for  each  horse  for  every  mile  run  during 
the  service,  which  several  witnesses  say  is  the  common  price  for  such  ser- 
vice. If  this  price  be  allowed,  Mr.  Reeside  has  not  received  more  than  he 
was  entitled  to. 

It  appears  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Schenk,  (see  Doc.  No.  122)  who  as- 
sisted in  running  the  express  for  the  Journal  of  Commerce,  that  in  some  in- 
stances that  express  arrived  earlier  at  New  York  than  the  Government  ex- 
press, and  that  at  other  times  the  Government  express  arrived  first.  The 
editor  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce  states  that  the  private  express  generally 
arrived  first.  This  was  owing,  no  doubt,  to  the  fact,  that  so  soon  as  the  Go- 
vernment express  commenced  running  from  Philadelphia,  from  which  place 
the  private  express  had  set  out  before  that  time,  Mr.  Hale,  the  editor, 
changed  the  place  of  .starting  his  express  to  Port  Deposite,  and  afterwards 
to  Washington  City;  and  by  receiving  his  mail  matter  at  these  places  his 
express  would  outrun  the  mail  coach,  and  pass  Philadelphia  before  the  Go- 
vernment express  could  receive  the  mail  matter  to  be  carried  by  it  from 
the  post  office  in  that  city. 


115  [  S6  3 

Some  subjects  examined  by  the  committee  may  have  escaped  our  notice. 
Nothing,  however,  deemed  to  be  of  importance  has  been  intentionallv 
omitted.  The  deficiencies  in  the  finances  of  the  department  have  arisen 
mainly  from  a  desire  in  the  head  of  the  department  to  extend  the  benefits  of 
mail  facilities  and  stage  coacli  accommodations  to  every  portion  of  the  com- 
munity; from  the  extension  of  the  franking  j^rivilege,  and  from  the  legisla- 
tion of  Congress,  in  extending  the  transportation  of  the  mail  over  unproduc- 
tive routes.  The  public,  however,  have  been  greatly  benefited  and  accom- 
modated by  the  very  measures  which  have  produced  the  present  embarrass- 
ed condition  of  the  department.  That  eirors  and  irregularities  have  occur- 
red is  most  certain,  and  most  of  them  have  been  produced  by  the  represen- 
tations and  pressing  solicitations  of  the  citizens  of  towns  and  neighborhoods 
through  which  the  increased  mail  facilities  have  been  extended.  Their  ap- 
plications have  been  sustained  by  members  of  Congress  from  almost  every 
section  of  the  country.  The  recent  measures,  however,  adopted  bv  the  de- 
partment, curtailing  mail  accommodations,  seem  to  promise  a  restoration  of 
its  administration  to  the  true  principle  upon  which  it  should  be  conducted, 
which  is,  that  its  expenditures  should  not  exceed  its  own  revenues. 

If  Congress  would  now  appropriate  a  sufficient  sum  to  pay  the  existing 
debts  against  the  department,  and  by  law  make  the  provisions  hereafter 
mentioned,  most  of  which  were  suggested  by  us  at  the  last  session,  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  could  be  entertained  but  that  the  operations  of  the  departn)ent 
would  hereafter  be  safe  and  economical,  and  most  of  the  useful  facilities 
which  have  been  curtailed  be  restored,  and  the  department  enabled  from  its 
own  resources  to  meet  the  expenditures  which  will  probably  be  produced 
by  the  extension  and  increase  of  mail  routes  at  the  next  session  of  Congress. 
Tile  legal  provisions  we  would  recommend  are: 

1.  An  auditor  and  treasurer  to  be  appointed  by  the  President  and  Senate. 

2.  That  reports  be  made  to  Congress  annually  of  all  tiie  expenditures  of 
the  depariment,  stated  in  detail,  including  incidental  expenses;  also,  of  all 
new  contracts,  and  modifications  of  contracts,  and  their  respective  prices; 
also,  a  statement  of  the  amount  paid  for  the  transportation  ot  the  mail  on 
each  route,  in  the  several  States  and  Territories,  as  near  as  may  be. 

3.  That  any  person  employed  in  the  General  Post  Office  shall  be  pro- 
hibited from  becoming  a  mail  contractor,  or  interested  i::  a  mail  contract,  or 
an  agent,  with  or  without  compensation,  for  a  mail  contractor. 

4.  That  advertisements  for  proposals  to  carry  the  mail,  issued  previous  to 
the  periodical  lettings,  be  made  as  nearly  as  may  be  according  to  the  man- 
ner in  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Postmaster  General,  the  mail  should  be 
transported  during  the  period  of  the  contract. 

5.  That  the  sealed  proposals  received  from  bidders  for  mail  contracts 
shall  not  be  opened  until  after  the  time  for  receiving  bids  shall  have  expired. 

6.  That  reports  be  made  to  Congress  annually  of  all  failures  by  contrac- 
tors on  principal  mail  routes  to  deliver  mails,  and  the  action  of  the  Postmas- 
ter General  in  regard  thereto  in  each  case. 

7.  That  the  deputy  postmasters  at  the  termination  of  each  route  be  fur- 
nished with  copies  of  the  schedules  containing  the  times  of  arrival  and  de- 
parture of  all  mails  at  his  office;  and  if  any  alteration  be  made  by  the  de- 
partment of  the  time  of  arrival  or  departure  of  any  mail  at  any  of  said 
offices,  the  postmaster  to  be  forthwith  notified  of  the  same. 

8.  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  each  deputy  postmaster  to  immediately 


[  86  ]  116 

notify  the  department  of  every  failure  in  any  contractor  to  deliver  the  mail 
at  the  respective  times  specified  in  the  schedules  furnished. 

FELIX  GRUNDY, 
JOHN  M.  ROBINSON. 

We  append  to  this  report  all  the  vouchers  and  depositions  procured   and 
taken  by  the  committee  in  relation  to  all  the  subjects  investigated  by  them. 

FELIX  GRUNDY, 
JOHN  M.  ROBINSOxN. 


ACC0MPANTIX3 


THE  REPORTS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  ?08T  OFFICE. 


lis 


Dr. 


1832. 

Apri 

1    3 

4 

13 

IS 

19 

23 

May 

23 

June 

30 

1832. 
July      1 


DOCUMENT 
James  RcesidCi  Contractor,  hi  account 


Balance  per  ledger,  to  1st  April,  1832 
Cash  Bank  U.  S.,  Baltimore  1,175  61 
Cash  Bank  of  Melropolis       1,500  00 


Cash  Bank  U.  S.,  Natchez,  Miss. 
Do  Hartford,  Con. 

Do  Charleston,  S.  C.     - 

Do  Utica,  N.  Y. 

Do  Hartford,  Con.      2,000  00 
Do  New  York  city     3,000  00 


Do  Philadelphia 

Delays  in  arrival   at   New  York,  13th 
and  14lh  June,  IS 32. 


|S2,G75  61 

I    2,000  00 

2,000  00 

2,000  00 

3.000  00 


5,000  00 
3,376  89 


Balance 


raft  on 

VV.  Dunield 

Do 

N.  Mendel],  (late 

Do 

J.  Barndollar 

Do 

Jno.  H.  Hoffins 

Do 

Jno.  Statler 

Do 

Jno.  McMiillan 

Do 

Jno.  McFarland 

Do 

Judah  Case 

Do 

S.  Drum    - 

Do 

W.  Black 

Do 

George  Lehmer 

Do 

S.  H.  Dailey 

$2,091  21 


20,052   50 
90  00 


822,239   71 

11.097   21 

100  00 

1           15  00 

1        100  00 

575  00 

15  00 

10  00 

90  00 

120  00 

130  GO 

60  00 

55  00 

60  00 

$1,330  GO 

119 


[  S6] 


Nd.  1. 

with  the  Post  Office  JJepartment. 


Cr. 


Transporting  the  mail,  Chambersburg 
to  Pittsburgh,  tlience  to  Wheeling, 
from  1st  January,  1832,  to  date,  at 
per  qr.         - 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Easton,  thence  to 
Pleasant  \iount,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsville, 
at  per  qr.     - 

Do     Bedford  to  Wasliington ,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Hagerslown  to  McConnellstown, 
daily  in  four  horse  stages,  at  j)er  qr. 

Do  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  at 
|jer  qr.    -  .  _  - 

Do  Piiiladelphia  to  Mauch  ('iiunck, 
at  per  qr.    - 

Do  Pottsville  to  Northumberland, 
Pottsville  to  Muncey,  thence  to  Co- 
lumbus, Danville  to  Milton,  at  per 
qr.  -  .  .  - 

Do  one  iialf  route  Philadelphia  to 
Port  Deposite,  his  half,  at  per  qr.   - 

Do  Augusta  to  Milledgeville,  at  per 
qr.  -  -  .  - 

D.  Dorrance's  draft  of  1st  April,  1S32, 
in  his  favor  .  .  . 

Win.  Shannon's  draft  of  27th  Decem- 
ber, 1S31,  in  his  favor 

Balance     - 


Transporting  the  mail,  Chambersburg  to 
Pittsburgh,  thence  to  Wheeling, 
from  l«t  April,  1832,  to  date,  at  per 
qr.  .  -  -  . 

Do     Philadelphia  to  Easton,  thence  to 
Pleasant  Mount,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsville, 
at  per  qr.    - 

Do  Bedford  to  Washington,  at  per 
qr. ,  to  date  -  -  ' 

Do  Hagerstown  to  McConnellstown, 
daily  in  four  horse  coaches,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  at 
per  qr.         .  .  -  - 


^3,G25 

00 

975 

00 

GS 

75 

725 

00 

350 

00 

873 

75 

625 

00 

750  00 

300  00 

1,732   50 

'  707  50 

350  00 

11,097   21 

25  22,239   71 


$3,625  00 
975  00  , 
68  75 
,725  00 
350  00 
873  75 


[  86  ] 


120 


Dk 


James  Reeside's  account 


1832. 
Aug.     4 


Sep.    11 
ii      it 


1832. 
Oct.    31 

Nov.     3 
<*'   13 

((  (C 

«     19 

Dec'r    4 


Cash  U.  S.  Bank,  city  New  York 
J)o  Bank  of  Augusta,  Georgia 
Do  U.  S.  Banh,  Baltimore, 
Do      do         Savannah,  Georgia 
Do      do         City  New  York 
Do      do         New  Orleans    - 


Balance 
Cash  U.  S.  Bank,  Rhode  Island 
Do      do         City  New  York 
Do      do  do 

Do      do        Boston 
Do      do         Philadelphia     - 
Do      do         Baltimore 
Do      do         City  New  York 


g7,000  00 
2,000  00 
2,000  00 
2,000  00 
3,129  00 
2,000  00 


2,000  00 
577  83 
3,000  00 
6,000  00 
3,000  00 
^00  00 
3.000  00 


13,129  oe 


$  30,556  21 


20,531   21 


17,977  8S 


§38,509  04 


121 


[  S6  ] 


Conlinued. 

"is  32. 
July      1 


1832. 

Oct. 

1 

(( 

<c 

<i 

n 

<i 

ii 

a 

ii 

a 

ii 

n 

ii 

■ii 

a 

if 

ii 

a 

a 

<.i 

16 

i< 

ii 

^'Jec'r 

31 

By  Transporting  mail,  Philadelphia  to 
Mauch  Chunk,  at  pel' qr. 

Do  Potlsville  to  Northumberland, 
Poltsville  to  Muncey,  do,  to  Co- 
lumbus, and  Danville  to  Milton,  per 
qr.  ...  -      .      - 

Do  one  half  route  Philadelphia  to 
Port  Dcposite,  at  per  qr.     - 

Do  Augusta  to  Milledgeville,  at  per 
qr.  -  .  .  . 

Balance 


By  Transporting  mail,  Chambersburg 
to  Pittsburgh,  thence  to  Wheeling, 
from  July  1,  IS32,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Easton,  thence  to 
Pleasant  Mount,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsville, 
at  per  qr.     - 

Do     Bedford  to  Washington,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Hagerstown  to  McConellstown, 
daily  in  four  horse  stages,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  at 
per  qr,         .  .  .  . 

Philadelphia  to  Mauch  Chunk,  at  per 
qr.  .  .  -  . 

Do  Pottsville  to  Northumberland, 
Potlsville  to  Muncey,  do.  to  Co- 
lumbus, and  Danville  to  Milton,  at 
per  qr.         - 

Do  One  half  route  Philadelphia  to 
Port  Deposite,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Augusta  to  Milledgeville,  at  per 
qr.    '  .  .  -  - 

D.  Dorrance^s  draft  of  1st  July,  in  his 
favor  .... 

D.  Dorranco's  draft  of  1st  October, 
1832,  in  his  favor 

George  Lehmer's  draft  of  2d  July, 
1832,  in  his  favor  returned 


Balance 


SS55  00 

860  00 

55  00 


Ok. 
S625  00 

750  00 

300  00 

1,733  50 
20,531   21 


30,556  21 


$i 

1,625 

00 

975 

00 

68 

75 

725 

00 

350 

00 

y 

873 

75 

625 

00 

750  00 

300  00 

1,732  50 


1,770  00 
26,714  04 

3838,509  04 


16 


[86] 


Dr. 


\22 


James  Reeside^s  ddcount — 


Balance 
To  Draft  on  George  Smith 

Do  Jno.   Smith  -            -            - 

Do  Robt.  Walker 

Do  Jno.  Webster,  jr. 

Do  H.  Null,  (late) 

Do  Jno.  Gamble    - 

Do  W.  D.  Sterrett 

Do  B.  Stinger,  (late) 

Do  Jno.  Duffield 

Do  Jas.  Austin  -             -             - 

Do  N.  Mendell  - 

Do  J.  W.  Duncan 

Do  Saml.  Waugh 

Do  Jno.  Statler  .             -             - 

Do  Jno.  McMullan 

Do  S.  Drum 

Do  Jas.  Baldwin 

Do  D.  T.  Moore 

Do  H.  B.  Ward  (late)     - 

Do  Rd.  Hay 

Do  J.  White       -             -            - 

Do  S.  Irwin       -            _            - 

Do  Sureties  of  Jno.  Stott 

Do  Jno.  Levers  -             -             - 

Do  H.  McElbarth 

Do  B.  Morrison,  (late)  - 

Do  Jno.  Elder    - 

Do  Jas.  D.  Rea  -            -            - 

Do  Sureties  of  Fdk.  Askbaugh   - 

Do  Robt.  Claxton 

Cash,  U.  S.  Bank,  Baltimore 

Do  do           New  Orleans 

Do  do           Philadelphia 

Do  do           Pittsburgh 

Do  do           Boston 

Do  do           Philadelphia 

Do  do           Washington,  D.  C. 


\S  26,614  04 


125 
IS 
10 
7 
10 
60 
29 
63 
30 
6 
12 
15 
60 
25 
)0 
9 
LO 
52 
J4 
)2 
11 
)9 
9 
44 
287 
47 
50 
71 
91 


95 
00 
58 
00 
73 
00 
00 
04 
30 
00 
96 
99 
00 
00 
00 
00 
96 
02 
36 
54 
17 
54 
69 
94 
04 
86 
91 
86 
79 
84 


150  00 

9  96 

10  02 

52  36 

34  54 

102  17 

11  54 

209  69 

6,000 
577 
5,000 
2,000 
3,000 
3,000 
975 


00 
83 
00 
00 
00 
00 
00 


1,476  81 


20,552  as 
i48,921  94 


123 


[86  ] 


Continued. 


Ca. 


1833. 


23 


27 


By  Transporting  mail,  Chambersburg 
to  Pittsburgh,  thence  to  Wheeling, 
from  1st  October,  1832,  to  date,  at 
per  qr.    -  -  - 

Do  Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsville, 
at  per  qr.    -  -  -  - 

Do     Bedford  to  Washington,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Daily  mail  from  1st  January,  1832, 
at  per  qr.  $966  67 

Do  Hagerstown  to  McConnellstovvn, 
daily  in  four  horse  stages,  at  per  qr. 

Do  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  at 
per  qr.         - 

Philadelphia  to  Mauch  Chunk,  from 
1st  October,  1832,  to  date,  atperqr. 

Do  Pottsville  to  Northumberland, 
Pottsville  to  Muncey,  Pottsville  to 
Columbus,  and  Danville  to  Milton, 
from  1st  October,  1832,  to  date,  at 
per  qr.         - 

Do  One  half  route  Philadelphia  to 
Port  Deposite,  at  per  qr.     - 

Do  Blair's  Gap  to  IBedford,  thence  to 
Cumberland,  fromlst  April, at  $1,125 
per  qr.        -  -  -  _ 

Do  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  from 
1st  January,  1832,  at  $1,500  per  qr. 

Increased  service  stipulated  in  contract, 
from  1st  January,  1832^  at  g3,250 
per  qr.        - 

Second  mail  during  winter,  from  1st 
January,  1832,  at  $375  per  qr. 

Express  mail  from  1st  January,  1832, 
to  date,  at  S7S7  50  per  qr. 

Augusta  to  Milledegville,  at  per  qr.    - 

David  Dorrance's  draft  of  2d  January, 
1833,  in  his  favor    -  -  - 

Extra  expense  incurred  in  keeping 
three  extra  teams  between  New 
York  and  Philadelphia,  in  conse- 
quence of  frequent  detention  at  New 
York  from  one  to  two  hours  for  distri- 
bution of  foreign  mails,  they  fre- 
quently arriving  just  as  the  mail  was 
departing,  from  the  1st  January  to 
31st  December,  1832, 

Carrying  from  Philadelphia  to  New 
York  all   the  large  mail    bags  in- 


J,625  00 


68 

75 

725 

00 

3,866 

68 

350  00 

873 

75 

625 

00 

750  00 
300  00 

3,375  00 
6,000  00 

13,000  00 

1,500  00 

3,150  00 
1,732  50 

860  00 


5,000 


86  ] 
Dr. 


124 


James  Eceside's  accounf- 


1833. 
April    1 


4 
11 


a 

24 

May 

• 
4 
9 

13 

17 

18 

(( 

24 

June 

31 
4 

10 
(< 

12 


Amount  brought  forward 


848,921   94 


To  Balance 

Draft  on  James  Edwards 
•Cash,  Bank  of  Metropolis,  D.  C. 
Do  U.  S.  Bankj  city  New  York 
Do  do  Philadelphia 

Do  Patriotic  Bank,  D.  C, 
Do  do  do 

Do  U.  S.  Bank,  city  New  York 
Do  do  New  Orleans 

Do  Bank  of  Washinoton,  D.  C. 
Do  Patriotic  Bank,  D.  C.  - 
Do  U.  S.  Bank,  Boston  - 
Do  Patriotic  Bank,  D.  C.  ~ 
Do  U.  S.  Bank,  Boston  - 
Do  do  Philadelphia 

Do  do  Charleston,  S. 

Do  do  Philadelphia 

Do  Patriotic  Bank,  DC.  - 


1 

1 

1 

1 

! 

1 

1 

S4S,921 

94 

jgl,314 

26 

gl40 

78 

225 

25 

3,970 

00 

3,000 

00 

7,336 

05 

12,000 

00 

577 

83 

2,000 

00 

3,000 

00 

3,000 

00 

431 

25 

1,480 

00 

2,196 

00 

2,000 

00 

1,000 

00 

2,680 

00 

1,000 

00 

2,000 

00 

33,365 

OS 

1^42,015 

39 

125 


Continued. 


[  86-] 
Cr. 


1833. 


Feb. 


Mar.     30 


1S33. 
April    1 


tended  for  use  in  the  State  of  New 
York, averaging  five  hundred  pounds 
per  week,  for  same  period,  at  §10 
per  week  -  _  - 

Sending  southern  mail  four  trips  to 
New  York,  when  the  steamboat  did 
not  arrive  at  Philadelphia  in  time  to 
keep  up  the  connexion,  at  $\50  per 
qr.  .  .  -  . 

Penalties  charged  in  March,  31st  De- 
cember, 1831,  and  30th  June,  1832, 
remitted      _  -  -  - 

Passages  of  mail  guard  both  ways  be- 
tween Philadelphia  and  N.  Y.  city, 
from  1st  January  to  31st  December, 
1832,  366  days,  one  passenger  each 
way  every  day,  making  732  passen- 
gers, at  $3,  being  half  the  price  for 
each  passenger         -  _  . 

Balance 


By  Transporting  the  mail  New  York 

to  New  Haven  and  Hartford,  from 

1st  January,  1833,  at  per.  qr.,   his 

share  -  _  -  _ 

Do       New  York  to  Philadelphia,  and 

increased  service,  per  contract,  per 

qr. 
Do     Second  mail   during  winter,  and 

an  express  mail,  per  qr. 
Do     Chambersburg     to      Pittsburgh, 

thence  to  Wheeling,  per  qr. 
Do     Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsville, 

per  qr.         -  -  -  - 

Do     Bedford  to    Washington,   and   a 

daily  mail,  per  qr. 
Do     Philadelphia  to  Norristown,  from 

10th  March,    1833,  at  $37.5  per  qr. 
Do     Hagerstown  to  McConnellstown, 

daily  in  four  horse  stages,  per  qr. 
Do     Philadelphia  to    Mauch  Chunk, 

at  per  qr.    -  -  .  - 

Increased  expedition,  from  1st  March, 

1833,  at  3250  per  qr. 


^520  00 


S3, 520  00 


600  00 


490  00 


1,090  00 


2,196  00 
1,31-4  26 

>4S,921   94 


$1,08  333 

4,750  00 

1,162  50 

3,625  00 

68  75 

,1,691   67 

89  78 

350  00 

625  00 

86   11 


t  86  1 


,156 


Dr. 


James  Reeside's  account — 


1833. 

July 

1 
6 

i( 

IS 

ii 

{( 

(( 

23 

li 

11 

<i 

it 

July 
Aug. 

23 
3 

Amount  brought  forward 


To  Balance    -  -  -  - 

Draft  on  Felix  Lurch 

Cash  U.  S.  Bank,  Philadelphia 
Do  do         Boston 

Do  Patriotic  Bank,  D.  C.  - 
Do  U.  S.  Bank,  Norfolk,  Virginia 
Do  do  Providence,  R.  I. 

Do  Bank  of  Maryland,  Baltimore 
Do  Patriotic  Bank,  D.  C. 
Do  U.  S.  Bank,  Savannah,  Ga. 
Do  do  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

Do  do  city  New  York 


g42,015  39 


~ 

@42,015 

39 

§23,552 

02 

14  24 

3,000  00 

4,000  00 

4,000  00 

2,000  00 

2,000  00 

3,000  00 

9,000  00 

4,000  00 

3,000  00 

400  GO 

16,400 

00 

§57,966 

26 

127 


[86] 


Continued. 


Cr. 


1S33.     1 

April 

1 

It 

it 

(I 

it 

.< 

tt 

1833. 

July 

1 

tt 

ti 

tt 

ti 

tt 

tt 

tt 

it 

(I 

By  Transportation  of  daily  mail  direct 
from  Port  Clinton  to  Tamaqua  per 
the  railroad,  from  1st  March,  1S33, 
at  $250  per  qr.        - 

Do  Pottsville  to  Northumberland, 
Pottsville  to  Muncey,  do  to  Colum- 
bus, and  Danville  to  Milton, at  per  qr. 

Increased  expedition,  Pottsville  to 
Northumberland,  from  1st  March, 
1S33,  at  §187  50  per  qr.    - 

One  half  of  route  Philadelphia  to 
Port  Deposite,  per  qr. 

Transporting  the  mail,  Blair's  Gap  to 
Bedford,  thence  to  Cumberland,  per 
qr.  -  -  -  . 

Do  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg, 
from  1st  January,  per  qr.     - 

Do  Augusta  to  Milledgeville,  from 
1st  January,  p6r  qr. 

Balance 


By  Transporting  the  mail,  N.  York  to 
New  Haven  and  Hartford,  from  1st 
April  to  date,  at  per  qr. ,  his  share 

Do  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  and 
increased  service  per  contract,  per 
qr.  -  -  -  - 

Do  second  mail  during  wmter,  and 
an  express  mail,  per  qr. 

Do  Chambersburg  to  Pittsburgh, 
thence  to  Wheeling,  per  qr. 

Do  Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewarts- 
ville,  per  qr.  -  -  - 

Do  Bedford  to  Washington,  and  a 
daily  mail,  per  qr   . 

Do    Philadelphia  to  Norristown,  per 

qr- 

Do  Hagerstown  to  McConnellstown, 
daily  in  four  horse  stages,  per  qr.    - 

Do  Pottsville  to  Mauch  Chunk,  per 
quarter        .  .  .  - 

Do  Daily  mail  direct,  Port  Clinton  to 
Tamaqua,  on  railroad,  at  per  quarter, 
from  1st  April        -  .  - 


$S6   11 


750  00 


63 

87 

300 

00 

1,125 

00 

873 

75 

1,732 

50 

23,552 

02 

842,015  39 

1,083  33 

4,750  00 

1,162  50 

3,625  00 

68  75 

1,691  67 

375  00 

350  00 

125  00 

250  00 


i;  86  ] 

Dr. 


128 


James  Reesidc's  account— 


1833. 

Oct. 

1 

(( 

23 

Nov. 

7 

<( 

18 

ii 

(( 

a 

23 

Dec. 

16 

Amount  brought  forward 


To  Balance 

Draft  on  John  Smith 

Cash,  N.  Y.  State  Bank,  Albany 

Do    Manhattan  Co.  Bank,  N.  Y. 

Do  do  do        N.  Y. 

Do    Commonwealth  Bank,  Boston 
Do    Western  BankjPhiladelpIiia 
Do    Manhattan  Co.  Bank,  N.  Y. 


S57,966  26 


gl4 
3,000 
4,000 
3,000 
3,000  V.W 
3,000  00 
3,000  00 


11 

00 
00 
00 
00 


S57,966-26 


339,516  26 


19,014   11 


§58,530  37 


Continued. 


m 


I  S6  ] 


Cb. 


1833. 


i\i\y 


By  transporting  mail,  Pottsville  to 
Northumberland,  &  increased  expe- 
dition; Pottsville  to  Muncey;  Potts- 
ville to  Columbus;  and  Danville  to 
Milton;  from  April  1,  to  date,  pr.  qr. 

Do  Half  route,  Philadelphia  to  Port 
Deposite,  per  quarter 

Do  Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford;  thence  to 
Cumberland,  per  quarter     - 

Do  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  per 
quarter        .  -  .  - 

Do  Do  Augusta  to  Milledgcvilic,  per 
quarter         -  -  - 

Balance 


By  transporting  the  mail,  Augusta  to 
ISIilledgeville;  per  quarter 

Do  NevV  York  to  New  Haven  and 
Hartford,  per  quarter 

Do  New  York  to  Philadelphia;  and 
increased  as  per  bontract,  per  quarter 

Do  Second  weekly  mail  during  win- 
ter, and  an  express  mail;  per  quar- 
ter .  .  .  . 

Do  Chambersburg  to  Pittsburgh; 
thence  to  Wheeling;  per  quarter 

Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsvillc;  per 
quarter        -  -  -  - 

Do  Bedford  to  Washington,  a  daily 
mail ;  per  quarter     -  -  - 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Norristown;  per 
quarter         -  .  -  . 

Do  Hagerstown  to  McConnellstown, 
daily,  in  four  horse  stages;  per 
quarter        .  -  -  - 

Bo  Pottsville  to  Mauch  Chunk;  per 
quarter        .  -  -  - 

Do  Daily  mail  direct;  Port  Clinton  to 
Tamaqua,  on  railroad;  per  quarter  - 

Do  Pottsville  to  Northumberland, 
and  increased  expedition;  do.  to 
Muncey;  Pottsville  to  Columbus; 
and  Danville  to  Milton;  per  quar- 
ter -  -  -  - 

By  half  route;  Philadelphia  to  Port 
Deposite;  per  quarter 

Do  Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford}  thence  to 
Cumberland;  per  quarter     - 


i5937  50 

300  00 

1,125  00 

873  75 

1,732  50 
39,516  26 

857,966   26 

1,732  50 
1,083  33 
4,750  00 

1,163  50 

3,625  00 

68  75 

1,691  67 

375  00 

350  00 
125  00 
250  00 


§37  50 

300  00 

•1,125  00 


Dr. 


130 


James  Recside's  account — • 


1834. 


Jan. 


,*€  W 

Jan. 
Feb. 


'«    12 


Amount  brought  forward, 


(( 

22 

u 

24 

<t 

« 

i( 

28 

n 

(( 

ii 

ii 

t< 

« 

i( 

<< 

Mar. 

31 

To  balance     -  -  - 

Draft  on  J.  Hutchinson 

Do         G.  Schemer 

Do         E.  Barton     - 

Do         A.  V.  Wallerchamp 

Do        M.  McDowell  -  -  | 

Do         J.  M.  Buchalovv        -  -  j 

Do         John  Coons  -  -  -  i 

Do         J.  Reed 

Do         R.  H.  Hammond 

Do         C.  Fetler      - 

Do         John  Walker 

Cashy  Manhattan  Co.  Bank,  N.  Y.    •     - 
Do     Patriotic  Bank,  D.  C,    - 
Do     Western     da  Phildelphia 

Delays  between  Philadelphia  and  Hart- 
ford, Connecticut,  on  3d,  24th,  25th, 
26th,  27th  and  28th  Jan.,  1S34 
Cash,  New  York  State  Bank,  Albany 
Do     Seventh  Ward  Bank,  N.  Y.     '- 
Do     Western  Bank,  Philadelphia     - 
Do     Patriotic  Bank,  D.  C. 
Do     Bank  of  Metropolis 
Do     Seventh  Ward  Bank,  N.  Y.      - 
Do         do  do         do      - 

Do         do  do         do     - 

Do     Patriotic  Bank,  D.  €. 

Do     Over  credit  for  an  express  mail 

from  April  25,  to  September 

30,  1833;  at  «787  50  cts.  per 

•       quarter  .  .  . 


858,530  37 


§58,530   37 


51   70 

34  25 
IG  GO 
65  00 
55  GO 
5  00 
10  00 
40  00 
40  00 
186  69 
10  93 


7,000  00 
3,000  00 
3,000  00 


3,000  00 
3,000  00 
1,100  00 
1,090  00 
4,000  00' 
7,000  00 
4,000  00 
13,000  00 
3,983  26 


S34,0SG  &7 


5CS  5T 


13,000  GO- 


600  OC^ 


40,173  2& 


1,367  31 
§89,729  51 


Continued. 


131 


[  SO  ] 


By  transporting  mail,  Baltimore  to 
Chambersburg;  per  quarter 

Do  Cash  deposited  in  Western  Bank, 
Philadelphia,  November  30,  1832  - 
Balance 


By  transporting  the  mail,  Augusta  to 
Milledgeville;  per  quarter  - 

Do  New  York  to  New  Haven,  and 
Hartford;  per  quarter 

Do  New  York  to  Philadelphia;  and 
increased  service  as  per  contract;  per 
quarter        -  _  .  - 

Do  Second  weekly  mail  during  w^in- 
ter;  at  $315  per  quarter;  running 
through  in  twelve  hours,  and  carry- 
ing additional  way  mail;  from  May 
1,  1833,  at  $1,281  25  per  quarter,  to 
date  .  _  -  . 

Do  Chambersburg  to  Pittsburgh; 
thence  to  Wheeling;  per  quarter 

Do  Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsville; 
per  quarter  -  .  _ 

Do  Bedford  to  Washington ;  per  quar- 
ter -  -  -  - 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Norristown;  per 
quarter        -  -  -  - 

Do  Hagerstown  to  McConnellstown; 
per  quarter  -  .  . 

Do  Daily  in  four  horse  stages,  inclu- 
ding one  month's  extra  pay  on  part 
discontinued;  per  quarter    - 

Do  Pottsville  to  Mauch  Chunk;  at 
per  quarter  .  -  - 

Do  Daily  mail  tiirect;  Port  Clinton 
to  Tamaqua,  per  the  railroad;  at  per 
quarter        .  -  -  . 

Do  Pottsville  to  Northumberland; 
and  increased  expedition;  including 
one  month's  extra  pay  for  discon- 
tinuing; per  quarter 

Do  Pottsville  to  Muncey;  Pottsville 
to  Columbus;  and  Danville  to  Mil- 
ton; from  Oct.  1,  1833,  to  date;  per 
quarter        .  -  .  - 

Do  Half  route;  Philadelphia  to  Port 
Deposite;  per  quarter 


g873  75 

6,000  00 
34,080  37 


858,530  37 


^1,732  50 
1,083  3S 

4,750  00 


3,796 

3€ 

3,625 

00 

68 

75 

725 

00 

375 

00 

10 

00 

340 

00 

135 

00 

250  00 

187  50 

750  00 
300  00 


132 


1834. 
April    1 


1834. 


James  Reeside^s  account' 


Amount  brought  forward 


To 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 


Balance 
Draft  on 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 
Do 


W.  D.  Sterrelt 

J.  Austin 

J.  Waugh 

J.  Schell 

J.  Statler 

John  McMulIan 

John  McFarland 

Wm.  Horton 

J.  Herriott 

J.  Ulam 

J.  Estep 

J.  Dunning 

P.  Amick 

R.  McNamara 

J.  Williams 

John  Gooding  - 

A.  E.  Duncan 

W.  Shriver 

Jolin  R.  Gwinn 


To     Balance 
April    7     Do     Cash,  Western  Bank,  Philadel- 
phia .  .  - 
Do     Do  per  James  Page,  P.  M.,  Phi- 
ladelphia       -            -            - 
Do     Do  Western  Bank,   Philadelphia 


May 


$2,000  GO 

1,000  00 
2,000  00 


),729  5.1 


gS9,729  51 

g9,6612  23 

£210  00 

100  00 

15  00 

130  00 

100  00 

50  00 

161  33 

5  00 

80  00 

100  00 

25  00 

15  00 

ao  00 

50  00 

85  00 

20  00 

10  00 

85  00 

25  00 

1.24B  3S 

«!70,S58  65 


$54,369  0^ 


133 


[86   ] 


Continued. 


Cr. 


1834. 
Jan.      1 


1834. 
April    1 


1834 
April    1 


By  transporting  mail,  Blair's   Gap  to 
Bedford;    thence    to     Cumberland 
pr.  qr.         .... 

Do  Baltimore  to  Chambersb'rg;  pr.qr. 
Balance 


By  transporting  mail;  Augusta  to  Mil- 

ledgeville;  per  quarter 
Do     New  York  to  New  Haven,  and 

Hartford;  from  Jan.   1,  to  date;  per 

quarter        .  -  -  - 

Do     New  York  to  Philadelphia;  and 

increased  service  and  second  mail; 

per  quarter  .  .  - 

Do     Running  through  in  twelve  hours 

and  carrying  an  additional  way  mail; 

per  quarter  ... 

Do     Chambersburg  to  Pittsburg;  and 

thence  to  Wheeling;  at  per  quarter 
Do     Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsville; 

per  quarter  -  -  . 

Do     Bedford  to  Washington;  per  quar- 
ter -  -  ,      ,      - 
Do     Philadelphia  to  Norristown;  per 

quarter        -  .  -  - 

Do     Hagerstown  to  McConnellstown; 

three  times  a  week  in  four  horse 

coaches;  per  quarter 
Do     Half  route  Philadelphia  to  Port 

Deposite;  per  quarter 
Do     Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford;  thence  to 

Cumberland;  per  quarter     - 
Do     Baltimore  to  Chambersburg;  per 

quarter        .  .  .  - 

Balance 


By  transporting  mail;  Savannah  to  Au- 
gusta; from  Jan.  1,  1834,  to  date, 
at  $1,000  per  quarter 

Do  Daily  mail  from  Savannah  to  Au- 
gusta; from  February  21,  1834,  to 
date;  at  ;?  1,000  per  quarter  - 


$1,125 

873 
(J9,612 

00 
75 
32 

$89,721) 

51 

§1,732 

50 

1,083 

33 

5,125  00 

1,281 

25 

3,625 

00 

68 

75 

725 

00 

375 

00 

175 

oa 

300 

o& 

1,125 

00 

873 
54,369 

75 
07 

$70,858 

65 

$1,000  00 
426  57 


C   S6  > 
Dr. 


134 


James  Beeside's  account — 


1834. 

Aay      8 

To  Cash  U.   States'   Bank, 

Hartford        -       g2,000  00 

Do 

Do    Savings'     Bank, 

Louisville,  Ky.       1,500  00 

«        a 

Do 

Do  Union  Bank,  Nash- 

ville           -              1,500  00 

a        a 

Do 

Do       Commonwealth 

Bank,  Boston          1,000  00 

86,000  00 

^lay    13 

Do 

Do  Manhattan  Bank, 

N.  York                  4,432  44 

a       <c 

Do 

Do      Commonwealth 

Bank,  Boston         5,567  56 

ti       i( 

Do 

Do  Manhattan   Bank, 

New  York              5,000  00 

15,000  00 

u    17 

Do 

Do   U.   States'  Bank,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C. 

6,000  00 

**    23 

Do 

Do  per  James  Page,  P.  M.,  Phi. 
ladeJphia        .             .             - 

1,000  00 

io"y-.^3 

Do 

Do    Western     Bank, 

10   ((iu.'- 

Philadelphia,        $1,783  26 

(( 

Do 

Do     Franklin    Bank, 

Baltimore               2,000  00 

3,783  26 

''    24 

Do 

Do  U.  States'  Bank, 

Mobile,                    2,500  00 

(( 

Do 

Do     Merchants     and 
Trader's    Bank, 
New  Orleans             500  00 

« 

Do 

Do  Bank  of  Ithica,         1,200  00 

<t 

Do 

Do    Western     Bank, 

Philadelphia,          1,000  00 

n 

Do 

Do  Concord  Bank,  N. 

Hampshire,             1,500  GO 

« 

Do 

Do  Boston    Bank,           1,300  00 

8,000  00 
5,000  00 

*•     28 

Do 

Do  Manhattan  Bank,  New  York 

rune  21 

Do 

Do  Western  Bank,    Philadelphia 

1,968  09 

51,751   35 

S122,610  48 

135 


Continued. 


1^6  J 

Cr. 


1834. 
April    1 


April  28 


30 


Jun«  30 


By  transporting  daily  mail  from  Blair's 
Gap  to  Bedford;  from   March    1,  to 
July,  lS33;atS727  93  per  quarter 
Do     Daily   mail  from  Blair's  Gap  to 
Bedford;  from  July  1,  to  December 
23,    IS33,  at  $727  93  per    quarter; 
including  one  month's  pay  for   dis- 
continuance .  .  - 
Do     Daily     mail     from    Bedford     to 
Washington;  from  October  1,  to  De- 
cember   31,     1833,    including   one 
month's  pay  omited  to  be  credited    - 
Do     Carrying  newspapers  in  fast  mail; 
Chambersburg  to   Pittsburgh;    from 
April   1,  1832,  to  July  1,  1833;    at 
$1250  per  quarter  - 
Do     Carrying  newspapers  in  fast  mail; 
Chambersburg  to  Pittsburgh;  from 
July  1,  1833,  to  December  31,  1833, 
at  §1,250  per  quarter;  including  one 
month's   pay   for  discontitming  the 
same            -             .             .  . 
Do     Running  the    daily  express    be- 
tween Philadelphia  and  New  York; 
ninety  miles  each   way,    through   in 
six  hours;   by   special  order  of  the 
Postmaster  General;  from  Jan.    30, 
to  March  8,   1833;   it  being   thirty- 
eight  trips,  that  is  to  say,  that  two 
sets  of  horses  run  each   way,  every 
day;  making  152  trips,  ninety  miles 
each  trip,  at  one  dollar  per  mile  for 
each  set  of  horses    -             -  - 
Do     Penalties  charged;  February    12, 

1834;  remitted  May  1,   1834  " 
Do     Sundry  drafts  on  postmasters;  re- 
turned unpaid  -  _  . 
Do     Cash  deposited    in  the  Western 

Bank,  Philadelphia 
Do  Drafts  drawn  by  Mr.  Reeside  on 
the  department,  and  charged  to  him; 
but  were  delivered  to  Mr.  Bates  as 
agent  of  the  department,  and  by  him 
negotiated  for  the  use  of  the  depart- 
ment; viz.:  one  dated  Jan.  8,  1834, 
payable  5-8  May,  1834,  for  S4000; 
one  dated  Jan.  8,  1834.  payable  5-8 
May,  1834,  for  S2000;  one  dated 
January  8,  1834;  payable  10-13, 
May,  1834,  for  S2000;  one  dated 
i       January    8,     1834,     payable    10-13 


g97S  66 


1,455  86 


966  67 


6,250  00 


2,500  0(? 


13,680  00' 

600  00 

69  57 

20,000  00 


C  86  ] 

Dr. 


138 


James  Jieeside's  account' 


Amount  brought  forward 


1834. 
July  1 


Balance  brought  forward 

Balance 


$122,61043 


gl22,610  42 


S12,191   03 
7,539  55 

319,720  64 


Continued. 


137 


[§n 


■rl 

Cr 


1S34 
June  30 


1834 
July 


By  Drafts  drawn  by  Mr.  Reeside; 
two,  each  for  ^5000;  dated  June  3, 
1S34,  payable  1-4,  August  1,  1S34 - 

Do  Check  No.  2211  on  Manhattan 
Bank;  favour  ol"  Mr.  Bates  but  re- 
ceived by  Mr.  Governeur,  to  be  ap- 
plied  by  him  to  payments  of  the 
Post  Office  Department 

Do  Checks  dated  May  13,  1834,  fa- 
vour of  Mr.  Reeside,  and  charged 
to  him,  but  paid  over  to  Mr.  Gover- 
neur, to  be  applied  to  payments  of 
the  department,  viz:  check  No. 
1863,  on  Manhattan  Bank,  New 
York,  for     - 

Do  Check  No.  18fj4,  on  Common- 
wealth Bank,  Boston,  for     - 

Do  Checks  dated  May  24,  1834,  fa- 
vour of  Mr.  Bates  ond  charged  to 
Mr.  Reeside;  but  paid  over  by  Mr. 
Bates  to  Mr.  Governeur,  to  be  ap- 
plied to  payments  for  the  depart- 
ment, viz:  No.  1959,  on  Bank  of 
Ithica,  N.  Y.  for  §1,200;  No.  19G0, 
Western  }3abk,  Philadelphia,  for 
Si, 000;  No.  1981,  on  Concord,  N. 

^    H.,  for  $1,500;  and  No.    1962,  on 
Boston,  Mass.  for  gl,300 

Balance         j 


By  Transporting  mail,  New  York  lo 
New  Haven  &  Hartford, from  April  1 
to  date,  at  per  quarter 

Do  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  in- 
creased service,  a  second  mail,  run- 
ning through  in  12  hours,  and  car- 
rying an  additional  way  mail  at  pr.qr. 

Do  Chambersburgh  to  Pittsburgh, 
thence  to  Wheeling,  at  per  quarter  - 

Do  Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewarlsville, 
at  per  quarter  -  -  - 

Do     Bedford  to  Washington,  a  daily 
mail  to  December  31,  1833 
■   18 


$10,000  00 


10,000  00 


4,432  44 
5,567  56 


!2 1,000  00 


20,000  00 


5,000  00 
12,191   09 


$122,610  42 
Si, 083  33 

6,406  25 

3,625  00 

68  75 

725  00 


.L. 


[   S6  ]' 
Dr. 


13S 


James  Reeside^s  account — 


Amount  brought  forward,* 


.i  K'Z  ; 


9,720  64 


!  I  9,720  54 


Jl 


139 


[86] 


Continued. 


Or. 


1834.     1 

July      1 

By  Philadelphia  to    Norristown,    half 
route,  Philadelphia  to  Port  Deposits 

per  quarter               _             .             . 

- 

675  00 

<< 

Do     Hagerstown  to  McConnellstown, 

at  per  quarter          ,             _             . 

_ 

175  00 

(( 

Do     Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford,  thence  to 
Cumberland,  and  a  daily  mail  from 
March   1  to  December  31,  1833,  at 

per  quarter               -             _             . 

- 

1,125  00 

t( 

Do     Baltimore  to  Chambersburgh,  at 

per  quarter               -             _             - 

- 

475  00 

« 

Do     Savannah  to  Augusta;  and  thence 

to  Milledgeville,  per  quarter 

_ 

3,732  50 

(( 

Express    stage    mail    between    New 
York  and  Philadelphia  from  April 
25  to  September  30, 1833,  at  787  50 

per  quarter              -             .             _ 

$1,367   31 

<< 

Do     Additional  one  month's  pay  for 

discontinuing  same 

262  50 

1,629  81 

$19,720  64 

Balance  in  his  favor 

87,529  55 

|_  86  ]  140 

[Doc.  No.  3.] 

February  2,  1835. 

We  certify  that,  on  our  examination  of  the  books  of  the  General  Post  Of- 
fice, we  found  the  balance  of  the  account  of  Richard  C.  Stockton,  (a  con- 
tractor for  carrying  the  mail,)  as  stated  in  the  said  books,  to  be  S78,170  48 
due  from  him,  on  the  1st  day  of  April,  1834,  inclusive. 

[Doc.  No.  2.] 

And  we  further  certify  that,  from  an  examination,  as  above,  of  the  ac- 
count of  Edwin  Porter,  another  contractor,  the  balance  due  from  him,  on 
the  day  above  stated,  was  021,093  99. 

PISHEY  THOMPSON, 
GEO.  S.  HOUGH. 


[Doc.  No.  4.] 

J  bice  li 
Friday,  January  23,  1835. 

J.  W.  Hand,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  fol- 
lowing interrogatories: 

Question  1.     Are  you  the  solicitor  of  the  Post  Office  Department.-^ 

Answer  1.     I  am. 

Ques.  2.  What  was  the  amount  of  balances  due  the  department  on  the 
1st  July,  1834,  which  were  due  on  the  1st  July,  1829? 

Ans.  2.     About  '§133,298,  as  nearly  as  I  can  now  state. 

Ques.  3.  Does  that  sum  include  the  amount  which  has  been  carried  to 
bad  debts  since  the  1st  July,  1829? 

Ans.  3,     It  does  not. 

Ques.  4.     What  balance  has  been  carried  to  bad  debts  since  that  time? 

Ans.  4.     ^24,1 96  is  the  balance  carried  to  that  account. 

Ques.  5.  Has  the  residue  of  the  sum  which  was  due  the  department  on 
the  1st  day  of  July,  1829,  been  collected? 

Ans.  5.     It  has  not  been  wholly  collected. 

Ques.  6.  What  has  become  of  the  part  of  that  residue  which  has  not 
been  collected,  and  of  what  items  is  it  made  up? 

Ans.  6.  It  is  chiefly  in  bad  debts.  It  is  affected  by  profit  and  loss  ac- 
count. 

Ques.  7.  What  was  the  balance  carried  to  bad  debts  prior  to  the  1st  Ju- 
ly, 1829? 

Ans.  7.     Answering  from  memory,  I  should  say  not  far  from  iS48,000. 

Ques.  8.  Can  you  answer  as  to  the  amount  of  that  balance  which  has 
been  carried  to  profit  and  loss  account? 

Ans.  8.     I  cannot. 

Ques.  9.  In  the  way  in  which  the  books  are  kept,  would  any  of  the 
losses  upon  the  balance  of  that  be  carried  to  profit  and  loss  account? 

Ans.  9.  Understanding  the  question  to  refer  to  the  balance  due  on  the 
1st  July,  1829,  I  answer  that  that  balance  is  affected  by  the  entries  to  profit 
and  loss  account,  so  far  as  they  refer  to  postages  which  accrued  prior  to  July 


ii 


141  C  86  ] 

1st,  1829.  For  instance,  if  profit  and  loss  be  debited  to  a  postmaster  since 
the  1st  July,  1829,  for  moneys  remitted  by  mail  and  lost  prior  to  1st  July, 
1829,  the  balance  due  on  1st  July  would  be  so  far  affected  by  it  as  that  we 
should  have  lost  a  certain  portion  of  that  balance. 

Ques.  10.  Would  not  the  balance  of  which  you  have  spoken  be  affect- 
ed in  some  way  by  what  you  call  your  suspense  account? 

Ans.  10.  Undoubtedly  it  would;  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  state  to  what 
amount. 

Ques.  11.  Would  it,  from  the  best  judgment  you  can  form,  be  to  any 
considerable  amount? 

Ans.  11.     I  am  not  prepared  to  answer. 

J.  W.  HAND. 

J.  W.  Hand's  statement- 

Balance,  consisting  of  debts  due  by  late  postmasters,  contractors,  and  others, 
which  accrued  from  the  establishment  of  the  Post  Office  Department  to  the 
1st  July,  1829,  (exclusive  of  a  single  case  stated  as  bad  in  the  Postmaster 
General's  report  of  24th  November,  1829,)  remaining  due  on  the  books 
of  said  department  on  the  1st  July,  1834,  -  -  $111,066 

Amount  of  balance,  consisting  of  debts  which  accrued  prior  to  July  1,  1829, 
regarded  as  desperate  and  carried  to  account  of  "bad   debts,"  since  the 
said  1st  July,  1829,  excluding  entries  prior  to  Sept.  30,  1829,       $24,196 
Amount  of  the^case  above  mentioned,  -  -  -  $22,232 

The  amount  of  bad  debts,  or  losses  on  the  postages,  which  accrued  be- 
tween July  1,  1829,  and  July  1,  1834,  is  not  yet  known.  It  is  certain, 
however,  that  it  will  be  very  small. 

The  foregoing  statements  have  been  hastily  prepared,  but  are  believed  to 
be  substantially  correct. 

J.  W.  HAND. 

Amount  reported  unavailable  on  the  1st  July,  1829,            -  $310,830 
Balance  remaining  due  on  the  books  of  the  department,  as  before 

stated,              ..-..-.  $133,298 

Amount  carried  to  account  of  "  bad  debts,"  since  July  1,  1829,  $24,196 

The  sum  of  ^^310,830  above  constitutes  a  part  of  the  general  balance  of 
8541^680,  reported  as  due  to  the  department  on  the  1st  July,  1829. 

The  general  balance  of  any  given  period  includes  all  debts  of  every  de- 
scription, on  the  books  of  the  department,  from  its  establishment  to  said  pe- 
riod. 

J.  W.  HAND. 


[Doc.  No.  5.J 

Post  Office  Department,  January  24,  1835. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  a  statement  of  the  items  which  have  been 
transferred  to  the  accounts  of  bad  debts,  profit  and  loss,  and  suspense,  by 
means  of  which  transfers  they  do  not  appear  on   the  list  of  the  balances  of 


[  86    ]  142 

accounts  due  to  the  department.     , Their  aggregate  amount  is  as  follows: 

Bad  debts,  --....  g77,6G2  26 

Profit  and  loss,  -  .  .  .  .  21,554  48 

Suspense,  -.-._-  25,036  69 


^Total  aggregate,  .  .  .  >  124,253  43 

The  amount  which  had  been  stated,  as  it  was  taken  from  a  ge- 
neral exhibit,  was       -  -  _  -  _  123,500  96 


In  noting  the  different  items,  the   books  having  since  that  time 

been  posted  up,  they  are  found  to  exceed  that  sum  by  $152  47 

I  have  the  honor  to  be. 

Very  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

VV.T.  BARRY. 
Hon.  Felix  Grundy,  '     '      - 

Chah^man  of  the  Com.  on  the  Post  Office  and  Fast  Roads, 


[Doc.  No.  6.] 

Post  Office  Department,  December  24,  1834. 
The  following  statement  of  facts  will  exhibit  the  financial  condition  of  the 
Post  Office  Department,  from  a  list  of  balances  taken  from  the  books  of  ac- 
counts, and  from  the  ascertained  amount  of  revenues  and  expenses  subse- 
quent to  the  dates  of  those  balances. 

A  list  of  balances  is  taken  as  they  appeared  on  the  books  on  the  1st  of 
April,  1834,  not  including  any  part  of  the  expenses  for  transporting  the 
mail  from  January  1  to  April  1,  1834,  nor  any  part  of  the  revenues  arising 
from  postages  within  that  period.  All  receipts  from  postmasters  and  others 
are  included  in  the  list  of  balances,  and  all  payments  for  incidental  and 
other  expenses  to  the  31st  of  March,  1834,  inclusive.  From  this  list  of 
balances,  it  appears  that  there  v/ere  due  to  the  department,  on  the  1st  of 
April,  1834,  as  follow,  viz: 
From  old  postmasters,  who  had  gone  out  of  office  prior  to  the 

1st  Januar}'^,  1833,  balances  amounting  to  -  -      ^^147,732  02 

From  postmasters  still  in  office,  or  who  had  not  gone  out  of 
office  prior  to  January  1,  1833,  for  postages  which  accrued 
prior  to  January  1,  1834,  ...  -         248,029   11 

From  old  contractors,  agents,  and  on  miscellaneous  accounts, 
wliose  contracts  had  expired,  or  whose  accounts  had  ceased 
to  be  current  before  the  1st  January,  1833,  -  -  33,178  3S 

Balances  against  contractors,  for  payments  made  to  them  prior 
to  the  1st  April,  1834,  for  the  current  services  of  the  quar- 
ter which  ended  that  day,  and  for  former  services  which 
had  not  yet  been  placed  to  their  cr^it,  ampunling  to  284,897  38 

Total  amount  of  balances  due  the  department  prior  to   1st 

April,  1834,        ..---.      g7l3,S36  89 


M3  ,  l  ^G  ] 

From  this  list  of  balances  there  appears  to  have  been  due  from  llic  de- 
partment, on  the  1st  April,  1S34,  as  follows,  viz.: 
To  old  postmasters,  who  had  gone  out  of  office  prior 

to  the  1st  January,  1833,  balances  amounting  to  S7,020  50 
To   old  contractors,  agents,  and   on   miscellaneous 
accounts,  prior  to  January  1,   1833,   which  ac- 
counts had  ceased  to  be  current  -  3,470  53 
To  postmasters  still  in   office,  or  who  were  so  on 
the  1st  January,  1833,  principally  for  payments 
made  on  account  of  current  postages  during  the 
quarter  ending  April  1,  1834,                   -             118,489  50 
To  contractors  whose  contracts  were  still  running 
or  had  not  expired  prior  to  January  1,  1833,  for 
services  performed  prior  to  January  1,  1834,     223,484  95 

S352,4G5  48 

Leaving  the  net  amount  of  balances  in  favor  of  the  department, 
agreeably  to  the  list  of  balances  above  reforrpd  to,  April 
1,  1834,  -  -  -  -  -  -  5361,371   41 

The  net  proceeds  of  postages,  from  January  1  to  April  1,  1834, 

not  included  in  the  above  list  of  balances,  was  -  496,677  21 


Making  the  amount  of  balances,  on  the  1st  April,  1834,  inclu- 
ding the  net  am.ount  of  balances  exhibited  in  the  list,  S858,048  62 

There  was  due,  on  the  1st  April,  1834,   for  transportation, 

which  had  not  yet  been  credited  to  contractors,  -  iS49,4S7  SO 

The  expense  for  transportation,  from  January  1  to  April  1, 

1834,  was      ------  454,514  22 

There  was  also  a  balance  due  to  banks  on  that  day  above  the 

amount  of  deposites,  -  _  .  .  451,599  48 


Making  the  amount  of  debt  on  that  day,  -  -  §955,601   50 

From  this  sum  deduct  the  above  amount  of  balances,  applica- 
'  i)le  to  its  liquidation,  _  .  _  .  858,048  62 


And   the   balance  against   the  department,  on  the  1st  April, 

1834,  was      -..---  §97,552,88 

There  had  been  reported,  in  1828,  as  unavailable     $284,289  00 

In  1829,  the  farther  sum  of       -  -  -  22,235  00 

Also,  in    1829,  counterfeit  money  and   notes  of 

ijroken  banks,  .  .  _  .  4; 306  00 


Making,  together,  the  unavailable  sum  of  -      S310,830  00 

Of  this  sum,  which  is  unavailal)le,  there  has  been 
charged  over  lo  i)rolit  and  loss,  suspense  and 
bad  debts,  so  as  not  to  be  embraced  in  the  li.^t 
of  balances,  the  sum  of         -  -  -  J  23,500   96 

Leaving,  on  the  account  of  balances^  which   has 

Geen  re])orted  unavailable,  the  sum  of  187,329  04 

Which  added  to  the  above  deficit,  and  the  whole  debt  of  the 

department,  on  the   1st  April,  1834,  exceeded   the   whole  , 

of  its  available  funds  to  the  amount  of  -  -  S2S4,881   92 


[  86  ]  144 

Such  was  the  real  condition  of  the  department  on  the  1st  day  of  April, 
lSy4,  admitting  that  the  whole  estimated  as  unavailable  shall  be  lost,  and 
that  no  other  losses  shall  have  been  sustained.  Thei'e  is,  however,  no  doubt 
that  the  amount  already  collected  on  what  was  estimated  as  unavailable,  is 
more  than  equal  to  all  other  or  subsequent  losses,  and  that  the  condition  of 
the  department  cannot  be  worse  than  this  exhibit  presents  it. 

From  April  1  to  July  1,  1834,  the  net  amount  of  postages  was  S490,158  84 
The  expense  for  transportation,  during  the  same 

period,  was         ....  S454,514  21 

T^he  incidental  expenses  of  the  department,  for 

the  same  period,  were                  -             -                8,974  07 
Making  the  whole  expenses  of  the  department, 

from  April  1  to  July  1,  1834.     -  -  463,488  28 

Revenue  for  that  quarter  above  the  expense,  -  ^26,670  56 

Which  sum,  deducted  from  the  above  deficit,  shows  that  the 
debt  of  the  department  was,  on  the  1st  July,  1834,  above 
all  its  available  means,  _  .  -  ,  ^258,2 11   36 

This  statement,  having  been  made  from  a  full  list  of  balances  as  they  stand 
on  the  books,  and  from  the  ascertained  amount  of  revenues  and  expendi- 
tures from  the  date  of  the  balances  to  the  1st  July,  1834,  may  be  relied  on 
as  substantially  correct,  and  as  exhibiting  the  true  condition  of  the  depart- 
ment on  the  1st  July,  1834. 

The  interest,  which  had  been  paid  prior  to  the  1st  April,  1834,  is  inclu- 
ded in  the  accounts  from  which  the  list  of  balances  is  drawn.  From  April 
1  to  July  1,  1834,  the  interest  account  is  about  S>6,000;  which,  if  added  to 
the  above  sum  of  $258,211  36,  will  show  the  amount  of  deficit  to  be,  on 
the  1st  July,  1834,  §264,211  36.  But  as  there  has  been  collected  by  the 
department,  at  diiferent  times,  an  amount  of  interest  more  than  sufficient  to 
ijover  tlie  S6,000  above  named,  which  also  is  not  embraced  in  the  above 
statement,  the  actual  deficit,  on  the  1st  July,  1834,  cannot  exceed  the  above 
sum  of  $258,211    36. 

VV.  T.  BARRY. 


[Doc.  No.  7.] 

SAMUEL  A.   COBURN. 

Lowell,  October  27,  1S.34. 

Question  1.     Do  you  know  Mr.  Wyman,  former  postmaster  of  this  place? 
What  was  his  character  as  postmaster? 

[To  this  interi'ogatory  the  chairman  objected,  but  agreed  that  the  answer 
to  the  question  might  be  taken  subject  to  the  decision  of  Mr.  Knight.] 

Answer  1.     1  know  him  very  well;  and  I  never  heard  his  character  im- 
peached, and  never  h^ard  a  complaint  against  him  as  postmaster. 

SAMUEL  A.  COBURN. 


145  [    86    ] 

[Doc.  No.  8.} 

Boston,  October  28,  1S34* 

Thomas  liillings,  having  appean.'d  and  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  fol- 
lowing answers  lo  the  respective  interrojj;atories  as  hereinafter  set  fortli; 

Question  1.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Eliphalet  Casej  postmaster  at 
Loivell? 

Answer  1.   I  am. 

Que.-tion  2.  Was  he  the  editor  of  the  newspaper  called  the  Lowell  Mer- 
cury previous  to  his  being  appointed  postmaster? 

Answer  2.   He  was. 

Question  .S.  What  do  you  know  about  l)is  compensation  as  editor  after 
he  was  made  postmaster;  and  did  he  or  did  he  riot  proj)ose,  if  appointed 
postmaster,  that  he  would  act  as  editor  of  said  j)aper  for  nothing?  State  all 
you  know  about  the  manner  of  his  obtaining  the  office,  and  what  lie  did 
receive  or  not  as  editor. 

Answer  .3.  Before  he  was  appointed  postmaster  he  was  editor  of  the 
newspaper,  and  received  three  hundred  dollars  a  year  for  his  services  from 
me.  Mr.  Case  had  been  to  Washington  some  time  before  his  ajDpointment 
as  postmaster  The  last  petition  for  his  appointment  was  signed  by  part 
of  the  committee  of  Lowell,  called  the  democratic  committee  for  calling 
caucuses,  &c.  in  town.  I  was  present  at  the  meeting;  was  one  of  the  com- 
mittee: it  was  held  in  Mr.  Case's  room.  I  did  not  sign  the  petition.  I 
saw  a  printed  notice  calling  said  meeting  at  Mr.  Case's  room,  and  therefore 
attended:  it  was  a  private  room. 

Mr.  Case  was  present,  and  it  was  stated  by  some  one  that  there  had  been 
complaints  made  ngninst  the  present  postmaster;  that  he  would  be  undoubt- 
edly removed,  and  proposed  that  Mr.  Case  should  be  recommended  as  his 
ciuccessor,  whicii  was  accordingly  done,  by  the  committee  in  part,  and  Mr. 
Case,  was  afterwards  appointed  postmaster. 

Before  this  meeting,  Mr.  Case  had  told  me  that  if  he  was  appointed  post- 
master, as  he  expected,  he  would  continue  lo  edit  the  paper  as  formerly^ 
without  charging  any  thing;  and  I  do  not  know  that  he  has  charged  any 
thing. 

Witness  has  seen  thn  paper  used  for  envelop  arrivirg  at  the  post  office 
used  for  envelopes  for  s. id  nev.spnper  at  the  lime  Mr.  Case  owned  the 
newspaper  and  since.  This  was  the  common  practice.  I  heard  Mr.  Case 
say  they  made  very  good  wrappers. 

The  newspaper  was  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Case,  under  a  deed  of  trust  from 
me,  about  four  months  before  he  was  made  postmaster.  This  was  in  De« 
cember,  18.32,  and  it  continued  in  his  hands  under  said  deed  for  about  a 
year.  He  had  possession  of  it:  he  sold  it  to  Huntress  and  Kiiowlton.  Ke 
continued  to  be  editor  of  said  nc.vspaper  during  the  time  1  owned  it,  and 
down  until  the  present  time,  so  far  as  I  know. 

Question  4.  Is  there  not  a  lawsuit  depending  between  you  and  Mr, 
Case,  on  the  subject  of  this  deed  of  trust? 

Answer  4.  There  is.  There  was  an  arbitration.  We  agreed  to  leave 
the  appraisal  of  the  office  to  certain  arbitrators.  He  held  it  as  collateral 
security  for  $650;  sold  it  for  $1,200.  I  claimed  the  difference  between 
•what  he  sold  it  for  and  the  sum  for  which  he  was  responsible.  He  refused 
to  pay,  and  we  left  to  the  arbitrat^ls  to  say  whether  the  estftblishmeat  wa» 
19 


[  S6    3  146 

worth  more  or  less  when  it  passed  into  his  hands  than  what  he  sold  it  for. 
The  arbitrators  appraised  it  at  more,  and  I  sued  him  on  the  award. 

I  understood  from  Mr.  Case  tliat  lie  had  made  aj^plication  to  be  made 
postmaster:  iic  had  not  got  the  cflicc,  bui  did  not  douht  he  would  get  it. 
I  do  not  know  that  it  was  understood  by  any  of  iiie  committee  except  my- 
self tiiat  he  was  to  make  no  charge  as  editor  if  he  was  appoineed  postmas- 
ter.    I  don't  know'if  he  Iiad  mentioned  this  to  any  other:  he  had  spoken  to 

me. 

THOMAS  BILLINGS. 


[Doc.  No.  9  ] 

October  2S,  IS34. 

Asahel  B.  Wright,  aged  15  years. 

Question  1.  Are  you  employed  in  the  office  of  the  Lowell  Mercury,  and 
how  long  have  you  been? 

Answer  1.  Yes;  and  have  been  for  18  months.  Mr.  E.  Case  is  editor  of 
the  paper.     I  am  an  apprentice  in  that  office. 

Question  2.  Is  it  or  not  the  practice  to  bring  the  wrappers  and  papers  of 
the  post  ofiice  received  from  other  post  offices  as  envelopes  to  the  printing 
office,  to  be  used  in  wrapping  the  newspapers? 

Answer  2.  Yes;  it  is  the  constant  practice.  They  are  regularly  all 
brought  everv  Thursday.  I  brought  them  about  two-thirds  of  the  time, 
and  most  generally  handle  them  when  they  are  there.  The  Mercury  is  put 
up  in  them.  1  have  four  times  found  among  these  papers  letters  directed 
to  the  office;  once  there  '.vas  a  package  of  letters,  how  many  I  could  not 
tell;  as  soon  as  discovered  I  returned  them  to  the  post  office.  The  package 
I  found  was  directed  to  Portland,  Maine. 

ASAHEL  B.  WRIGHT. 


147 

[Doc.  No.  10.] 


[86] 


^Amount  of  contracts  as  reported  by  the  Postmaster  General,  and  dif- 
ference as  extracted  from  the  contracts  as  executed. 


Document  No.  422;  23(1  Congress,  1st  Session,  18th  April,  18;1 


Pag-e. 

Report. 

Contracts. 

120 

4          §39,702  00 

121 

- 

-.               -               - 

- 

7,779  00 

122 

- 

-               -               . 

. 

40,296  00 

123 

. 

-               _               - 

. 

16,320  00 

124 

- 

-               -               . 

- 

7,514  GO 

125 

- 

.               .               - 

_ 

11,491   00 

126 

- 

- 

. 

25,891   00 

127 

- 

. 

. 

16,583  00 

128 

. 

.               -               - 

» 

11,185  00 

129 

_ 

-               -               . 

. 

7,663  00 

130 

- 

- 

. 

11,703  00 

131 

- 

- 

_ 

9,849  50 

132 

. 

_ 

. 

7,625  GO 

133 

. 

- 

. 

9,634  00 

134 

- 

-    - 

^ 

7,313  00 

135 

. 

. 

. 

70,825  90 

136 

. 

-                -               - 

• 

9,044  00 

137 

. 

. 

- 

8,062  25 

138 

. 

■ 

- 

4,255  48 

139 

- 

... 

. 

4,848  00 

140 

- 

.               .               - 

. 

45,435  00 

141 

. 

... 

- 

11,664  00 

142 

. 

... 

. 

11,500  50 

143 

* 

8,635  00 

$340,626  54 

Actual  contracts 

-         -         - 

$404,848  63 

[  8G  3  148^ 

Statement  showing  a  difference  between  divers  contracts  as  reported  by  the 


No.  route. 


951 

960 

990 

3,031 

1,118 
1,133 
1,125 
1,231 

1,383 
1,3SG 
1,409 
1,412 
1,501  and 
16  others 

1,508 

1,534 
1,538 


Contractors. 


J.  Reeside 

James  Horton 

J.  and  W.  Tonkin  &Co. 

Reeside,  Slay  maker,  and 

Tomlinson    - 
C.  L.  Ward       - 

'Do 
James  Smith      -  ~ 

James  Reeside 

Williamson  &  Stockton 
J,  McKenny,  jr. 
Jonathan  Phillips 
James  Williams 

R.  C.  Stockton  and  W. 

Neil 
Geo.  A.  Dohrman 

Diver,  Ely,  and  Gilbert 
William  Wilson 


Route. 


New  York  1o  Philadelphia  - 
Newton  to  Goshen  - 
Philadelphia  to  Bridgetown 

Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh    - 
Stroudsburgh  to  Brooklyn    • 
Russelvilleto  Wyalusing 
Dunsbury  to  Smilhport 
Hagerstown  to  McConnells- 
burgh        -  -  - 

Baltimore  to  Annapolis 
Baltimore  to  Uniontown 
Washington  to  Annapolis 
Georgetown,  D.  C,  to  Ridge 


Astabula  to  Wheeling,  Va. 

New  Lisbon  to  Ackron 
Canton  to  Norwalk 


Miles. 


90 
38 
44 

303 
74 
12 
99 

26 
30 
41 
38 
99 


143 


.80 


There  are  large  amounts  of  allowances  running  back  to  the  beginning  of 


149  [  80  ] 

P.  M.  General  »^pril  IS,  1S32,  and  the  actual  sums  in  those  contracts. 


How  transported. 

Tjips. 

Report. 

Contracts. 

Frnr  horse  post  coach 

Daily — Iwi  e  a  day   - 

i5G,0')0 

^20,500 

Stages 

Once  a  week 

200 

24S 

Do 

Six  times 

700 

1,000 

Four  horse  post  coach 

Daily 

7,000 

*2  7,000 

Horse 
Do 

Once  a  week 
Do 

\           350 

550 

Do 

Do 

394 

4S0 

Four  horse  post  coach 

Thrice  a  week 

40 

tl,400 

Stages 

Daily 

950 

955 

Horse 

Twice  a  week 

205 

350 

Four  horse  post  coach 

Three  and  six  a  week 

1,3.50 

1..500 

Do                do 

One  and  two  a  week 

1,050 

2,000 

• 

37,000 

56,360 

Four  horse  post  coach 

and  steam 

Daily 

2,750 

5,700 

Four  horse  post  coach 

Part  daily     - 

450 

700 

Horse 

Once  a  week 

207 

277 

658,646 

119,020 

Increase - 

58,646 

860,374 

contracts,  such  as  R.  C.  Stockton — several  routes  5514,950  Nominal. 
Allowed  from  beginning     -  •  -      20,150 


•Including  No.  1,1?0,  contract  $1,250, 


$35,100  Actual  sum. 
fBy  second  contract  same  date. 


[86] 


150 


[Doc.  No.  11.] 

Exhibit  of  difference  in  amount  of  contracts  in  1S27,  as  reported  by 
Poslmaslcr  General,  and  as  shown  by  the  contracts  entered  into  by 
the  bidders  with  the  Department. 


4 

5 

6 

7 

S 

9 

10 

11 

12 

18 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

SI 


Page  of  liociiment. 


Report. 

Con'.racts. 

g34,745  00 

g34,745  GO 

18,018  SO 

18,018  SO 

11,179  00 

11,204  00 

28,221  00 

27,827  00 

4,750  00 

4,750  00 

8,861  00 

8,861  00 

13,489  36 

13,489  36 

11,563  50 

11,563  .^0 

8,603  00 

8,423  00 

23,625  00 

23,575  00 

43,425  00 

41,229  00 

4,738  00 

4,733  00 

7,068  00 

7,068  00 

8,013  00 

7,877  -^0 

6,327  50 

6,273  .0 

9,295  00 

9,332  0 

1,950  00 

^1,950  00 

38,913  00 

39,236  00 

S282,785  00    |g2S0,155  00 


[Doc.  No.  12.] 

Route  No.  1744,  Georgetown  to  Cincinnati,  72  miles,  three  times  a  week 
in  four  horse  post  coaches.  Accepted  to  John  Thurston,  daily  in  four  horse 
post  coaches,  at  1,000  dollars,  and  subsequently  transferred  to  James  F. 
Robinson. 

Paris,  October  22,  1831. 

Please  issue  the  contract  for  carrying  the  mail  from  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  to 
Georgetown,  Kentucky,  to  James  F.  Robinson  of  the  latter  place. 

Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  THURSTON. 
Hon.  W.  T.  Barrt, 

Postmaster  General, 


151 


[    86    ] 


[Doc.  No.  13.] 

Georgetown,  Ky.,  December  2,  1831. 

Dear  Sir:  I  propose  increasing  the  speed  of  mail  route  from  Cincinnati, 
Ohio,  10  this  place,  from  the  pre:-.ent  contract,  so  as  to  meet  the  increased 
speed  of  the  routes  in  Ohio  and  Kentucky  connected  with  it,  as  already  pro- 
posed to  you  by  the  contractors  on  said  routes,  for  the  annual  compensation 
of  dollars,  in  addition  to  the  comjjcnsalion  under  my  picsent  contract. 

Should  this  j)roposilion  be  accepted  by  the  department,  my  contract  can  be 
issued  accordiiMrly.  Your  letter  informing  me  of  your  assent  to  the  transfer 
of  Mr.  Thurston's  bid  for  this  route  to  myself  has  been  duly  received. 

Your  friend, 

J.  F.  ROBINSON. 
Hon.  W.  T.  Baury, 

P'jsbnaster  General. 


[Doc.  No.  14.] 

Post  Office  Department, 
Office  of  Mail  Contracts,  November  16,  I  S3 1. 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  2d  instant  is  received.  The  Postmaster  General  con- 
sents that  the  contract  for  the  route  from  Georgetown  to  Cincinnati  shall 
be  made  in  your  name.  The  contract  will  be  forwarded  to  you  in  a  short 
time. 

Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

A.  NELSON, 
(For  the  Postmaster  General.) 
James  F.  Robinson,  Esq,, 

Georgetown,  Ky, 


[Doc.  No.  15.] 

The  cost  of  establishing  a  daily  line  from  Georgetown  to  Cincinnati. 

Fourteen  teams  of  horses,  at  90  dollars  per  horse        -  -       S5  040  00 

Six  nine  passenger  coaches,  500  dollars  each  -  .3  qoo  00 

Fourteen  sets  of  harness  at  50  dollars  per  set  -  .  700  oo 


Amount  of  original  capital  -  -       §3,740  00 

Annual  expense  o^ said  line. 

Fourteen  teams,  horse  keeping,  driver  hire,  horse  shoeing, 

wear  and  tear,  700  dollars  each  team  -  -  .        g9,800  00 

Contingent  expenses,  including  ten  extra  horses,  pay  of  an 

agent,  and  ferriage  -  >  -  .  .  i^qoo  00 

$10,800  00 


[    86    ]  152 

The  passaengers  upon  this  line  for  the  present  year  (which 

exceeds  any  previous  one)  will  amount  to  -  -        $3,500  00 

Suppose  them  to  increase  one  half  upon  the  establishment  of  a 

daily  line  ----..  1,750  00 

$'",250  00 


[Doc.  No.  IC] 

Georgetown,  Kr.,  December  4,  1S31. 

Dear  Sir:  1  have  seen  a  statement  made  by  James  F.  Robinson,  esq., 
of  this  place,  in  relation  to  the  transportation  of  ihe  mail  between  this  place 
and  Cincinnati,  and  beg  leave  to  say  a  few  words  on  that  subject.  The  ori- 
ginal cost  of  horses  aiui  coaches  will  be  S,740  dollars;  the  annual  expense  of 
the  line  10,800  dollars.  He  proposes  to  increase  the  speed  of  transportation 
so  as  to  connect  this  line  wiih  the  improvement  bids  of  the  Ohio  company 
from  Columbus  to  Cincinnati,  arid  the  Kentucky  company  from  Maysville 
to  Nashville.  To  make  this  connexion  he  must  run  through  in  fifteen 
hours;  according  to  his  present  contract  he  is  allowed  twenty  hours  for  the 
performance  of  the  trip;  this  makes  an  increase  of  five  hours. 

You  must  be  sensible  that  this  increase  will  subject  liini  to  great  in- 
convenience and  much  additional  expense.  The  horses  must  be  of  the 
finest  description,  and  indeed  the  whole  property  on  the  line  will  be  much 
more  costly. 

You  are  aware  of  the  fact,  that  to  increase  the  speed  as  proposed  will 
wear  out  the  property  much  sooner  than  if  permitted  to  travel  at  a  moderate 
rate.  The  horses  will  fail  much  sooner,  and,  in  fact,  every  way  the  ex- 
pense of  the  contractor  is  increased. 

That  it  will  be  highly  beneficial  to  the  department,  none  can  deny.  It 
will  be  acknowledged  as  another  evidence  of  the  enterprise  and  ability  of 
the  head  [of  the]  department,  and  of  his  persevering  determination  to  do 
every  thing  within  his  reach  to  increase  the  intercourse  between  every 
quarter  of  the  Union. 

I  do  think,  taking  every  thing  into  consideration,  an  additional  allowance 
of  §2,500  per  annum  would  not  be  more  than  a  fair  compensation  for  the 
increase  of  speed.  The  public  benefit  will  be  very  great,  and  I  am  sure 
the  department  ought  not  to  hesitate  to  make  the  improvement  when  it  can 
be  done  at  so  small  an  expense. 

Under  the  hope  that  yuu  will  close  with  his  proposition,  and  make  the 
allowance, 

I  remain,  with  sentiments  of  high  regard, 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

R.  I.  WARD. 
Hon.  W.  T.  Barry. 

Read  this  particularly,  and  decide  the  case. 

Your  friend, 

R.  M,  JOHNSON, 


153  [  86  ] 

[Doc.  No.  17.] 

Post  Office  Department,  December  29,  1S31. 

Sir:  The  Postmaster  General  directs  that  you  perform  the  trip  between 
Georgetown  and  Cincinnati,  each  way,  in  twelve  liours,  instead  of  the  time 
prescribed  by  the  "advertisement." 

Very  respectfully,  • 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN. 
J  AS.  F.  Robinson,  Esq., 

Georgetown,  Kentucky. 


[Doc.  No.  IS.] 
Georgetown,  Kentucky,  April  11,  1832. 

Dear  Sir;  1  take  the  liberty  of  writing  ^ou  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Ro- 
binson's contract  for  transporting  the  maiTfrom  this  place  to  Cincinnati.      \ 

I  have  seen  a  calculation  made  byMr.  R.,  and  enclosed  to  Colonel  John« 
son,  which  I  presume  he  has  placed  before  you. 

I  am  firmly  persuaded  that  the  contract  will  be  a  losing  one  at  a  Jess  al- 
lowance than  four  thousand  dollars  per  annum.  To  run  through,  as  pro- 
posed, in  connection  with  the  Ohio  and  Kentucky  improved  bids,  requires 
four  additional  teams  of  horses,  atanexpenseof^GOO  each  per  annum,*  making 
$2,400.  From  twelve  to  sixteen  extra  horses  must  be  kept  on  the  line  to 
supply  the  places  of  horses  that  may  be  unable  to  perform  the  rapid  travel- 
ling: these  will  average  SlOO  each,  say  $1,200.  Three  additional  coaches  at 
S500,  making  $1,500.  Then  the  horses  and  stages  have  to  be  much  superior 
to  those  formerly  used,  and  will  cost  twenty-five  per  cent.  more.  The  injury 
to  horses  and  stages  will  be  filty  per  cent,  more  than  if  run  at  a  moderate 
gait.  The  actual  additional  expense  cannot  be  less  than  six  thousand  dol- 
lars, and  may  reach  eight  thousand.  Under  these  circumstancas,  I  cannot 
suppose  you  will  hesitate  to  make  the  allowance  equal  to  four  thousand  dol- 
lars per  annum. 

During  the  past  winter,  the  mail  has  performed  every  trip  between  this 
and  Cincinnati  daily,  without  a  single  failure,  although  the  roads  were  far 
worse  than  ever  known  in  the  State.  No  other  contractor  in  the  State 
kept  up  to  the  time. 

I  am  pursuaded  the  department  cannot  desire  any  contractor  to  lose  mo- 
ney, and  all  it  ought  to  ask,  is  the  performance  of  the  contract  at  a  reasona- 
ble price. 

That  four  thousand  dollars  for  a  daily  line  of  seventy-five  miles  in  twelve 
hours,  in  all  kinds  of  weather,  and  under  all  circumstances,  is  a  reasonable 
compensation,  seems  too  clear  to  require  argument  or  calculation  to  prove  it. 

I  do  hope  you  will  allow  that  sum.    It  is  reasonable  and  fair,  and  ougb 
lobe  given. 

Respectfully,  your  friend, 

ROBERT  J.  WARD. 

Hon.  W.  T.  Barry. 
20 


[.86]  154 

[Doc.  No.  19.] 

Georgetown,  Kjcntucky,  June  14,  1S32. 

Sir:  To  have  performed  the  present  contract  for  transporting  the  mail 
from  this  place  to  Cincinnati,  as  bid  off,  \vould  have  required  only  tea 
learps  and  four  coache?. 

To  perform  th^  same  in  twelve  hours,  as  ordered  b}'  the  department, 
(and  as  I  have  performed  it  from  the  commencement.)  requires  seventeen 
teams  and  eight  coaches. 
Expense   of  seven,  additional  teams  ))er   annum,  including 

ever;/  thing,  (save  original  cost,)  ^§600  each      -  -  ^4,200  00 

Annua!  v.'ear  and  tear  of  four  additional  coaches  -  .  -  600  00 

•  *  $4,800  00 


The  above  statement  contains  onl}-  the  property  now  upon  my  line,  and 
in  acLual  service  in  carrying  the  mail.  And  an  increase  of  horses,  even  be- 
yond the  seventeen  teams,  i^is  believed',  will  be  nccesir-ary  to  keep  the  line 
in  operation. '  This  statement'is  predicated  on  the  actual  additional  expense 
by  me  incurred  in  performing  the  contract.  Believing,  as.  I  do,  that  the 
department,  in  ail  cases,  will  give  an  adequate  coinpensation  for  transporting 
the  m.ail,  I  have,  from  the  commencement  of  my  contract,  performed  it  in 
.the  time  directed,  relying  upon  the  department  for  such  allowance  as  shall 
be  thought  just  and  right.  It  surely  never  ought  to  be  the  object  of  the 
Government,  in  any  department,  to  require  services  of  an  individual  with- 
out making  a  full  and  fair  compensation  for  the  same.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, I  feel  authorized  to  ask  for  an  allowance  to  cover  the  additional  ex- 
pense to  which  1  have  been  subjected.  And  I  say,  with  the  utmost  candor, 
that  my  compensation  ouglit  to  be  increased  to  four  thousand  dollars  at  least, 
believing,  most  firmly,  that  this  sum  is  a  very  /oz^-and  moderate  compensa- 
tion for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  in  the  lime  and  manner  I  am  now 
doing  it. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  verv  respcctfullv,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

J.  F.  ROBINSON. 
Hon.   W.  T.  BAaiiy. 

[annexed  to  the  above.] 

The  undersigned  contractors,  for  carrying  the  mail  in  Kentucky,  have 
examined  the  annexed  letter  of  J.  F.  Robinson,  contractor  for  transporting 
the  mail  from  Georgetown  to  Cincinnati,  and  have  no  hesitation  in  saying 
that  the  state.ments  therein  contained  are  true.  We  have  no  doubt  but  that 
the  property,  as  therein  specified,  is  now  in  service  upon  the  line  of  said 
contractor,  and  that  the  compensation  asked  is  very  reasonable  for  the  ser- 
vices performed.  E.  P.  JOHNSON. 

June  14,  1832.  JOHN  HUTCHINS. 

[Doc.  No.  20.] 

Georgetown,  June  18,  1832. 
Also,  the  undersigned,  citizens  of  Georgetown,  Kentucky,  state  that  they 
are  acquainted  with  the  line  of  stages  owned'and  run  by  Jain^s  F  Robinson 

I 


155  [  86  ] 

from  Cincinnati  to  this  place;  and  that  the  property  stated  in  the  foregoing 
letter  is  employed  in  the  service  of  the  Post  Office  Department,  and  neces- 
sary to  perform  the  work  required,  and  that  the  additional  compensatioa 
disked  is  reasonable. 

MILUS  W.  DICKEY, 
KOBERT  M.  EWING. 


Georgetown,  June  IS,  1832. 

Dear  Sir:  Enclosed  you  will  find  an  application  by  myself  to  the  de- 
partment for  an  increase  of  my  allowance  for  transporting  the  mail  from 
this  place  to  Cincinnati  to  cover  the  additional  expense  by  me  incurred  un- 
der the  order  for  an  increased  speed.  I  have  given  you  the  statement  of 
Mr.  E.  P.  Johnson  and  John  Hutchins,  also  of  Major  M.  W.  Dickey  and 
Doctor  R.  M.  Ewing,  as  to  facts  by  me  set  forth,  and  the  reasonableness  of 
the  amount  asked.  The  first  gentlemen  were  selected  because  they  are 
known  to  the  department  as  the  two  principal  contractors  in  Kentucky;  and 
the  two  second,  because  they  reside  in  this  place,  are  gentlemen  of  high 
standing,  excellent  judges  of  property,  and  well  acquainted  [with]  my  line, 
and  each  well  known  to  the  department. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  F.  ROBINSON. 
Hon.  W.  T.  Barry. 


[Doc.  No.  21.] 
Post  Office  Department,  December  C,  1833. 

Sir:  Your  representations  and  claims  for  increased  compensation  for  car- 
rying the  mail  on  route  No.  1,744,  between  Georgetown  and  Cincinnati, 
have  been  duly  considered.  The  Postmaster  General  directs  me  to  state, 
that  he  does  not  reject  the  claim,  tliough  he  cannot  grant  it  upon  the  ground 
of  the  calculation  furnislied  by  Mr.  Ward.  No  extra  allowance  is  lawful 
unless  it  is  based  upon  the  original  contract. 

Your  contract  is  to  transport  the  mail,  daily,  between  those  two  points 
for  one  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  and  to  run  through,  each  way,  in  14 
hours;  72  miles  more  or  less.  To  perfect  the  connections,  it  was  found  ne- 
cessary to  limit  the  time  to  12  hours  each  way;  and,  during  the  best  season 
of  the  year  for*  passengers,  to  run  from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown  in  the 
night  instead  of  the  day. 

To  average  six  miles  to  the  hour,  and  to  gain  time  out  of  that  average 
for  changing  horses  and  mails  on  the  way,  instead  of  5-i  miles  an  hour, 
will  unquestionably  require  a  considerable  increase  of  stock;  but  whether 
two,  er  four,  or  how  many  additional  teams,  can  only  bo  known  by  the  ex- 
periment. Nor  have  we  tiio  means  of  ascertaining  v./hat  is  the  annual  ex- 
pense of  a  team,  including  driver,  wear,  decay,  and  contingencies;  though 
it  is  probable  in  that  place  it  would  not  exceed  SOO  dollars. 

These  points,  when  ascertained,  will  constitute  a  fair  subject  for  allowance. 
The  Postmaster  General  therefore  agrees,  that  if  J.  Hutchins  and  J.  G. 
Chiles,  esqrs.,  both  experienced  contractors  in  that  region  of  country,  will 
certify  their  opinion  of  the  additional  number  of  teams  required  on  the 


£86]  156 

whole  route  in  consequence  of  the  increased  expedition,  and  the  just  esti- 
mate of  annual  expense  for  each  team,  he  will,  on  receiving  their  certificate, 
decide  equitably  upon  the  amount  of  additional  compensation  to  which  you 
are  entitled.  If  you  prefer  any  other  persons  to  the  gentlemen  above 
named,  he  will  not  object,  provided  they  shall  be  approved  by  the  postmas- 
ter at  Cincinnati. 

Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN. 
James  F.  Robinson,  Esq., 

Georgetown,  Kentucky. 


[Doc.  No.  22.] 

The  undersigned  being  called  upon  by  James  F.  Robinson  to  estimate 
what  would  be  the  additional  expense  necessarily  incurred  by  the  contractor 
in  carrying  the  mail  daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  from  Georgetown, 
Kentucky,  to  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  in  the  period  of  twelve  instead  of  fourteen 
hours,  state,  that  to  run  the  aforesaid  route  in  fourteen  hours  requires  the  best 
speed;  but  to  run  the  same  in  twelve  hours,  as  now  run  by  the  present  con- 
tractor, does  require  extraordinary  speed;  that,  after  changing  horses,  giving 
time  for  passengers  to  take  some  refreshments,  delivering  the  mail  at  lifteen 
post  offices,  and  crossing  the  Ohio  river,  to  run  the  aforesaid  route  in  the 
last  named  time,  must  require  the  actual  running  to  be  at  least  at  the  rate  of 
eight  miles  per  hour.  To  perform  this  service  we  are  well  assured  will  re- 
quire the  finest  kind  of  horses,  short  routes,  and  a  large  number  of  surplus 

horses. 

Upon  llie  whole,  we  are  of  opinion  that  any  contractor  must,  by  the 
increase  of  speed  aforesaid,  necessarily  incur  the  additional  expense  of  four 
teams  and  two  coaches. 

The  expense  of  four  additional  teams  we  estimate  at  eight  hundred  dol- 
lars each  per  annum.  The  expense  of  two  additional  coaches  we  estimate 
at  three  hundred  dollars  per  annum.  Given  under  our  hands,  this  day 
of  December,  1832. 

J.  G.  CHILES. 
JOHN  HUTCHINS. 


[Doc.  No.  23.] 

The  undersigned,  at  the  request  of  James  F.  Robinson,  esquire,  have 
examined  the  annexed  statements  of  J.  G.  Chiles  and  John  Hutchins,  and 
concur  with  them  in  their  statements  and  estimates.  They  are  each  resi- 
dents of  Georgetown,  and  acquainted  with  the  stage  property  of  the  present 
contractor  on  the  route  from  this  place  to  Cincinnati;  and  also  the  manner 
in  which  he  has  performed  his  contract  during  the  last  year,  and  unhesitat- 
ingly state  that  we  believe  the  sum  of  four  thousand  dollars  would  be  but 
a  moderate  and  reasonable  compensation  per  annum,  for  his  services. 

MILUS  W.  DICKEY. 

ROBERT  M.  EWING. 


157  [86] 

[Doc.  No.  24.] 

Georgetown,  Kr.,  J^amtary  4,  1833.  . 

I  have  examined  the  statement  of  John  G.  Chiles  and  John  Hutchins, 
hereto  annexed,  and  concur  with  them  in  the  statements  and  estimates  by 
them  made.  I  have  been  the  keeper  of  the  stage  office  in  this  place  for 
several  years  for  the  present  and  former  contractors,  for  the  Cincinnati 
route,  and  also  for  the  southern,  eastern,  and  western  stages,  that  run  daily. 
From  my  knowledge  of  the  Cincinnati  line,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
conducted,  I  unhesitatingly  state  that  four  thousand  dollars  per  annum 
is  a  very  low  and  reasonable  compensation  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail 
as  performed  by  the  present  contractor. 

JOHN  DUDLEY. 


[Doc.  No.  25.] 

Post  Office  Department, 

January  30,  1833. 

Sir:  After  reading  the  enclosed  letter  to  Mr.  Robinson,  will  you  be 
pleased  to  forward  it  to  him? 

Very  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN. 
Hon.  R.  M.  Johnson,  House  of  Representatives . 


Post  Office  Department, 

January  30,  1833. 

Sir:  The  certificate  of  Messrs.  Hutchins  and  Chiles  is  received,  show- 
ing the  additional  expenses  to  which  you  have  been  subjected  by  executing 
the  order  of  the  department,  dated  29th  December,  1831,  requiring  you  to 
run  through  each  way,  between  Georgetown  and  Cincinnati,  in  twelve  hours. 
The  Postmaster  General  has  considei'ed  the  same,  and  agrees  that  your 
pay  shall  be  four  thousand  dollars  per  annum  in  the  ivhole,  to  take  date 
from  th'e  1st  January,  1832. 

The  entries  are  so  made  on  your  contract  for  that  route. 

Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN. 

True  copies.     Test: 

C.  K.  GARDNER, 
tdsst.  Postmaster  Gen. 
James  F.  Robinson,  Esq., 

Contractor y  Georgeioxvn,  Ky. 


f  86  ]       ^  158 

trfdditional  documents  connected  with  the  foregoing  correspondencp.. 

Post  Office  Department, 
*  Southern  Division,  November  14,  1S33. 

Sir:  The  Postmaster  General  has  decided  to  reduce  the  number  of  trips 
on  route  1,744  (Georgetown  to  Cincinnati)  to  three  per  week.  He  there- 
fore directs,  that  from  and  after  the  1st  day  of  December  next,  you  discon- 
tinue the  daily  mail,  and,  instead  thereof,  run  but  three  times  a  week. 

For  the  service  discontinued  two  thousand  dollars  per  annum  will  be 
deducted  from  your  pay,  leaving  you  two  thousand  dollars  a  year  for  the 
three  weekly  trips. 

One  month's  extra  pay  will  be  allowed  you  on  the  amount  deducted. 
Very  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

C.  K.  GARDNER, 

Jisst,  Postm,  GeneraL 
James  F.Robinson,  Esq., 

Georgeiowiij  Ky. 


Georgetown,  215^*  December,  1833. 

Dear  Sir:  1  have  the  pleasure  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  two 
last  letters,  with  all  the  enclosures  safe.  For  your  attention,  be  pleased  to 
accept  our  thanks.  It  is  to  us  a  matter  of  some  moment  to  be  informed,  at 
as  early  a  period  as  practicable,  if  there  is  a  reasonable  probability  of  our 
line  being  again  restored  to  a  daily  one;  or  may  we  calculate  that  it  will  re- 
main tri- weekly?  If  it  remains  tri- weekly,  we  will  have  a  large  surplus  of 
horses,  &c.,  to  dispose  of,  which  it  will  be  to  our  interest  to  do  as  soon  aspraa- 
ticable,  and  save  the  cost  of  keeping,  &c. ;  but  should  it  be  restored,  we 
ivould  not  dispose  of  any  thing,  as  we  will  not  be  able  to  replace  it  for  the 
same  for  which  we  could  sell.  Hence,  the  earliest  information  which  it  may 
be  in  your  power  to  give  us  on  this  subject,  is  desired. 

If  we  cannot  be  reinstated  as  a  daily  line,  our  only  remaining  remedy  is 
to  try  and  procure  such  aUoioance,  as  a  tri-weekly  one,  as  will  save  us 
from  loss,  &c.  Your  relations  and  friends  are  all  well.  No  news  worth 
your  attention. 

Your  friend, 
(Signed)  J.  F.  ROBINSON. 

Col.  R.  M.  Johnson. 
N.  B.  Enclosed  is  the  receipt,  signed  as  directed. 


Georgetown,  Kr.,  Dec.  24,  1S33. 
Dear  Sir:  I  have  just  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Robinson  and  Mr. 
Gaines;  and,  upon  full  conferente,  we  have  concluded  that  we  cannot  can- 
duct  a  tri-weekly  line  for  less  than  S3,000.     We  must  lose  money  if  we  take 
less,  and  Major  Barry  must  not  permit  us  to  do  that. 

You  must  insist  on  i53,O0O;  get  it  at  all  hazards;  we  cannot  work  for 
nothing.     Write  me  on  the  subject. 

Your  friend 

R.  ;.  WARD 


159  .  [  86   ] 

Please  peruse  the  letters  of  Messrs.  Robinson  and  Ward  as  to  the  route 
from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  and,  I  presume,  whether  it  stands  or  is 
changed,  they  will  expect  a  line,  which  I  would  be  glad  tofoirward  tothem^ 
and  oblige 

RICHARD  M.  JOHNSON. 


Post  Office  Department, 
Southerfi  Division j  January  9,  1S34. 

Sir:  The  Postmaster  General  instructs  me  to  state,  in  answer  to  the  com- 
munications of  Messrs.  Robinson  and  Ward,  submitted  by  you  to  the  de- 
partment, that  its  finances  will  not  permit  him  to  restore  the  daily  mai^- 
between  Georgetown  and  Cincinnati. 

In  regard  to  the  application  for  an  increase  of  the  conf^ensation  for  the 
tri-weekly  mail  to  §3,000  per  annum,  I  am  directed  to  state  that  the  pre- 
sent pay  exceeds  the  amount  of  the  original  stipulation;  and  that  he  cannot,, 
under  any  reasonable  or  proper  construction  of  the  obligations  imposed 
on  him,  increase  the  sum. 

Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

C.  K.  GARDNER, 


^j^asisi.  Postm.  GeneraL 


Hon.  R.  M.  Johnson. 


True  copies.         Test,  C.K.GARDNER, 

Assist.  Postm.  General. 


[Doe.  No.. 26.] 


December  26,  1S34, 


P.  S.  Loughborough,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 
respective  interrogatories: 

Question  1.  Please  examine  these  three  original  papers,  and  Inform  us 
who  wrote  them,  and  whether  they  were  written  in  conformity  with  duties 
required  of  them  by  the  department.     [Marked  0,  L,  and  G.] 

Answer  1.  One  was  written  by  myself;  one  by  C.  K.  Gardner,  assistant 
postmaster  general,  and  the  third  by  J.  P.  Oldham,  postmaster  of  Louisville, 
Kentucky. 

The  two  first  are  written  by  individuals  having  authority  to  give  such 
directions  and  instructions  as  are  therein  contained.  The  third  did  not,  so 
far  as  I  know,  have  any  express  authority  to  require,  but  I  have  no  doubt 
the  suggestions  contained  therein  would  be  complied  with  or  attended  to. 

Question  2.  Has  tlie  eastern  mail,  at  any  time  since  January  1,  1S32,  lor 
the  interior  of  Kentucky,  been  sent  by  Cincinnati  and  through  Georgetown.^ 

Answer  2.  On  that  subject  I  do  not  know  what  may  occasionally  liave 
been  done.  It  is  my  impression  that  the  eastern  mail,  for  the  interior  of 
Kentucky,  has  usually  entered  the  State  by  way  of  Maysville,  and  from 
thence  goes  on  through  the  State.     Another  mail,  which  goes  to  anotlier 


[  86  ]  160  ^ 

part  of  the  State  of  Kentucky  passes  through  Cincinnati  to  Louisvilie, 
usually,  by  steamboat.  When  the  boats  do  not  run,  this  mail  is  sent  from 
Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  I  believe. 

Question  3.  What  has  been  the  hours  of  arrivals  and  departures  of  the 
Cincinnati  mail  to  and  from  Georgetown,  since  January  1,  1832? 

Answer  3.  I  have  passed  on  this  line  since  that  period,  from  Georgetown 
0  Cincinnati.  As  well^as  I  recollect,  we  started'at  iwo  or  three  o'clock  in  the 
norning,  and  arrived  at  Cincinnati  about  dusk  the  same  day,  making,  as  I 
lUppose,  about  fifteen  or  sixteen  hours  tlirough.  I  have  travelled  that  route 
jio»e  than  once  within  this  time,  as  agent  of  the  department,  and  we  gene- 
."ally  went  through  in  about  the  same  time. 

Question  4.  Have  you  any  reason  to  suppose  that  you  were  longer  upon 
the  way  than  is  usual  on  that  route? 

Answer  4.  1  have  no  information  to  make  me  think  that  I  was  unneces- 
sarily delayed. 

Question  5.  Do  'f  ou  know  any  thing  of  a  Mr.  Thurston  to  whom  the 
route  from"  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown  was  originally  struck  off? 

Answer  5.  I  had  never  heard  of  him  before  nor  since  as  a  contractor.  I 
am  doubtful  if  I  was  here  at  the  lettings,  and  never  knew  a  man  by  that 
name  either  here  or  in  Kentucky. 

Question  6.  Did  you  know  any  thing  of  the  negotiation  for  an  extra  al- 
lowance on  this  route  while  that  negotiation  was  going  on? 

Answer  6.  I  was  not,  by  any  official  duty  in  the  office,  called  to  know  any 
thing  of  it. 


(0.) 
Post  Office,  Louisville,  Ky.,  January  2%,  1832, 

Sir:  To  avoid  any  possible  misunderstanding  of  my  views  as  regards  the 
distribution  of  the  mails  at  your  office,  1  will  here  state  that  I  do  not  desire 
that  you  should  open  and  distribute  the  mails  of  any  bags  other  than  those 
you  have  heretofore  opened  an'  d'stributed;  but  if,  among  the  mails  vc  J 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  distribulaig,  you  should  find  any  packets  addressed 
"  Louisville,  Ky-T  o''  "  Missouri  State"  you  will  please  send  such  pack- 
ets by  way  of  Cincinnati. 

Packets  for  ^^  Kentucky  State,''  Tennessee,  Illinois,  &c.,  &c,,  you  wili 
send  by  Maysville  as  heretofore.  To  send  more  by  Cincinnati  would  im- 
pose unreasonable  burdens  upon  the  contractor  on  that  route  at  this  season 
of  the  year. 

Very  respectfully, 

JOHN  P.  OLDHAM. 
Postmaster,  Zanesville,  Ohio. 


(L.) 

^pril  12,  1833. 
The  postmaster  at  Zanesville,  Ohio,  will  observe  the  following  rules  in 
regard  to  bags  and  packets  of  newspapers  and  pamphlets  going  west  and 
southwest  from  his  office. 

Bags  labelled  '*  Maysville,  Ky. ,"  «  Kentucky  State,"  "  Tennessee  State,'* 
will  be  forwarded  to  Maysville,  Ky. 

Bags  labelled   "Illinois,"  "Missouri,"  "Arkansas  Territory,"  "Mis- 


161  [  86  ] 

sissippi,"  <' Alabama/'  ^' West  Tennessee,"  when  such  come  to  hand,  will 
be  sent,  via  Columbus  and  Cincinnati,  to  Louisville,  Ky. 

Packets  of  newspapers  and  pamphlets  addressed  to  offices  in  Kentucky 
and  Tennessee,  except  Louisville  and  Nashville,  will  be  sent  by  way  of 
Maysville,  Ky. 

Packets  addressed  to  Louisville,  Ky.,  Nashville,  Ten.,  to  all  the  offices 
in  the  Territory  of  Arkansas,  the  States  of  Illinois  and  Missouri,  will  be  sent 
by  the  way  of  Columbus  and  Cincinnati  to  Louisville,  Ky. 

So  also  should  be  sent  the  packets  addressed  to  offices  -in  Alabama,  Mis- 
sissippi, and  Louisiana,  when  such  come  to  hand. 

P.  S.  LOUGHBOROUGH, 
General  Ji^ent  Post  Office  Department. 


(G.3 

Post  Office  Department,  Southern  Division, 

January  14,  1834. 

Sir:  During  thesuspenslon  of  steamboat  navigation  on  the  Ohio  river  you 
will  please  send  the  mail  for  Louisville  and  beyond  by  the  way  of  MayS' 
ville. 

Respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

C.  K.  GARDNER, 
Assistant  Postmaster  General, 
Samuel  J.  Cox,  Esq.,  P.  M. 

Zanesvilki  Ohio. 


[Doc.  No.  27.] 

Depositions  of  witnesses,  taken  at  Cincinnati,  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  before 
Micajah  T.  Williams  and  Jacob  Burnet,  commissioners  named  by  the  com- 
mittee appointed  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  to  investigate  the 
concerns  of  the  Post  Office  Department,  in  pursuance  of  the  commission 
and  instructions  hereto  annexed.  » 

William  Burke,  postmaster  at  Cincinnati,  a  witness  produced  and  sworn 
on  the  eighth  day  of  December,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-four,  the  truth, 
to  say  "touching  the  times  of  the  arrivals  and  departures  of  the  mail,  be- 
tween  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  and  Georgetown,  Kentucky,  since  the  first  day  of 
January,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-two,  and  the  average  times  of  arrivals 
and  departures,  in  each  month,  since  that  time;"  and  touching  the  following 
inquiries,  viz..  ''Whether  the  mail  east  of  Pittsburgh  or  Wheeling,  or 
any  part  of  Kentucky,  was  sent  by  that  route,  and  what  was  the  average 
weight  of  the  mail?  whether  Ward  is,  or  has  been  interested  with  J.  F- 
Robinson  in  the  transportation  of  the  mail  on  said  route,  and,  if  so,  at  what 
time  did  his  interest  commence  or  cease?" — did  depose  and  say,  that,  from 
the  first  day  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-two,  the  mail  com- 
menced running  three  times  per  week  from  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  to  Georgetown, 
Kentucky,  conveying  the  mail  from  the  eastern  cities  for  the  south  anid 
31 


[  86  1  162 

southwest,  including  the  mails  to  Lexington,  Louisville,  &c.  This  arrange- 
ment continued  until  the  17th  day  of  January,  ariving  at  this  office  from 
4  to  5  o'clock  P.  M.,  and  departing  the  same  evening  about  sunset.  The 
average  weight  of  the  mail  was  from  eighty  to  one  hundred  pounds. 

On  the  18th  day  of  January,  1832,  the  mail  commenced  ninning  daily 
from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  Kentucky^  ariving  and  departing  as  above 
stated  through  the  winter.  In  the  spring  of  1832,  when  the  stage  com- 
menced running,  and  ever  since,  the  mail  arrived  at  this  office  (Cincinnati) 
at  the  average  time  of  5  to  6  o'clock  P.  M.,  and  it  left  this  office  a  part  of 
the  time  on  the  same  evening,  and  at  other  times  it  left  in  the  morning  from 
4  to  5  o'clock  A.  M.  The  average  time  for  each  month  I  cannot  state.  The 
mail  for  that  route  was  regularly  made  up  in  the  winter  at  sunset,  and  in 
the  remainder  of  the  year  at  from  7  to  S  o'clock  P.  M. 

On  the  18th  January,  1832,  the  boat  mail  commenced  running  between 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  and  Louisville,  Kentucky,  daily;  arriving  at  Cincinnati 
from  8  to  9  o'clock  A.  M.,  and  departing  for  Louisville  from  9  to  10 
o'clock  A.  M.  From  and  after  the  commencement  of  this  arrangement  all 
letters  and  newspapers  from  the  east  by  the  way  of  Columbus,  and  directed 
to  Louisville,  Kentucky,  and  south  and  west  of  that  point,  were  sent  daily 
hy  the  mail-boat.  Packages  designed  for  that  part  of  Kentuck)',  between 
Georgetown,  Kentucky,  and  Cincinnati,  and  for  all  that  part  of  Keniucky 
Jving  south  and  east  of  Lexington,  as  far  as  Cumberland  Gap,  Tennessee, 
were  sent  by  the  mail  to  Georgetown,  Kentucky.  I  have  no  knowledge  of 
any  connection  between  R.  J.  Ward  and  the  contractors  for  carrying  the  mail 
from  Cincinnati  to  Georgetown,  Kentucky. 

For  a  number  of  days,  probably  ten  to  twelve,  during  the  winter  of  1832, 
the  ice  in  the  river  prevented  the  running  of  the  mail-boats.  During  this 
time  the  great  eastern  mail  between  Cincinnati  and  Louisville  was  carried  by 
the  way  of  Georgetown,  Kentucky,  going  and  returning. 

WILLIAM  BURKE, 


[Doc.  No.  2S.] 

Alexander  Connelly,  postmaster  at  Covington,  Kentucky,  a  witness  pro- 
duced, sworn,  and  examined,  the  truth  to  say,  touching  the  matters  herein- 
before stated,  did  depose  and  say,  that,  during  the  winter  arrangement, 
when  the  mail  was  carried  on  horseback,  (from  the  first  of  January,  1832,) 
it  arrived  from  Cincinnati  at  his  office  in  Covington,  sometimes  in  the 
night,  and  sometimes  about  daylight  in  the  morning,  and  left  his  office  for 
Georgetown,  Kentucky,  at  from  four  to  six  o'clock,  A.  M.  And  during 
the  winter  arrangement,  the  mail  from  Georgetown  arrived  at  his  office  in 
the  evening,  sometimes  at  five  o'clock,  and  at  other  times  in  the  night. 

And  the  deponent  further  saith,  that  during  the  smmmer  arrangement, 
■when  the  mail  was  carried  in  the  stage,  it  arrived  from  Cincinnati  at  his 
office  between  four  and  six  o'clock  A.  M.;  and  departed  for  Georgetown 
generally  in  a  few  minutes  after. 

And  the  deponent  saith  further,  that,  during  the  summer  arrangement, 
when  the  mail  was  carried  in  the  stage,  it  arrived  from  Georgetown  at  his 
office,  in  the  evening,  at  from  five  to  eight  o'clock.   Deponent  saith  further, 
that  the  stages  that  carried  the  mail  bore  the  names  of  Robinson.  Ward 
and  Gaines,  and  their  handbiits  were  signeo  oy  tne  same.     Ohver  Games, 


163  [  S6   ] 

one  of  that  firm,  told  the  deponent  that  Rohuison,  Ward,  and  himself,  were 
interested  in  the  contract. 

ALEX. CONNELLY. 

We  certify  that  William  Burke  and  Alexander  Connelly,  the  above 
named  -witnesses,  were  sworn  in  our  presence  by  persons  authorized  by 
law  to  administer  oaths,  and  that  their  testimony  was  reduced  to  writing 
by  one  of  us,  and  subscribed,  as  above,  in  our  presence. 

M.^T.  wTlUAMS,  I  Commissioners. 
Cincinnati y  December'  9,  1834. 


[Doc.  No.  29.] 

Interrogatories  propounded  to  J.  T.  Johnson,  present  postmaster  in  George- 
town, Kentucky,  this  2d  day  of  January,  1835. 

1st.  Can  you  state  the  hours  of  the  arrivals  and  departures  of  the  mail 
from  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  to  Georgetown,  Kentucky,  at  and  from  the  post  office 
in  Georgetown,  since  the  1st  of  January,  1832?     If  so,  state  particularly. 

In  answer  to  the  above,  I  have  to  state,  that  the  present  means  in  my 
power  will  not  enable  me  to  give  a  very  definite  answer;  but,  from  the  gen- 
eral information  which  our  returns  afibrd,  aided  by  memory,  my  best  im- 
pression is,  that  the  mail,  in  the  general,  arrived  at  Georgetown  from  Cin- 
cinnati after  9  o'clock  at  night,  and  departed  at  various  hours,  from  10 
o'clock  at  night  to  6  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

2d.   What  is  the  average  weight  of  the  mails  transported  on  said  route? 

I  am  not  enabled  to  state,  with  any  certainty,  the  weight  of  the  mails 
transported  on  said  route.  I  have,  however,  reflected  upon  the  subject,  and 
taken  some  means,  by  having  the  mail  weighed,  in  order  to  form  some 
judgment.  My  present  judgment  is,  that  the  mails  from  Cincinnati  to  this 
place  have  and  do  average  from  70  to  125  pounds.  The  return  mail  would 
fall  far  short  of  this;  perhaps  more  than  one  half. 

3d.  At  what  time  did  R.  J.  Ward  become  a  partner  in  the  contract  for 
carrying  the  mail  on  that  route?  and  when  did  that  first  become  known  to 
the  department? 

From  what  I  have  understood  from  some  or  all  the  parties,  (Messrs.  J. 
F.  Robinson,  0.  W.  Gaines,  and  R.  J.  Ward,)  I  suppose  R.J.  Ward  was 
equally  concerned  or  interested  in  the  contract,  from  its  commencement. 
Whether  he  was  known  as  such  at  the  department,  I  cannot  sa}'-,  but  pre- 
sume he  was  not.  I  cannot  say  whether  this  fact  ever  was  made  known  to 
the  Post  Ofiice  Department  at  Washington  City. 

If  I  have  ever  known  any  fact  that  would  shed  any  additional  light  on 
this  subject,  it  has  escaped  my  recollection. 

J.  T.  JOHNSON,  Poslmaster. 


The  same  interrogatories  being  propounded  to  James  F.  Robinson  upon 
the  3d  of  January,  1834,'  in  answer  to  the  first,  he  says:  That  the  time  of 
the  arrival  and  departure  of  the  mail  to  and  from  the  place,  during  (lie  period 
named  in  the  interrogatory,  has  varied,  depending  much  upon  (he  season 
of  the  year  ;the  state  o    tnc  roaas:  tne  laci.ity  wan  wnich  it  might  be  able 


I  se  ;i  164 

to  cross  the  Ohio  river  in  the  night;  and  the  arrival  and  departure  of  the 
mails  connected  with  this  route  at  each  end.  That  he  thinks  the  general  time 
of  its  arrival  and  departure,  at  this  season  of  the  year,  is  correctly  detailed 
b^  J.  T.  Johnson  in  his  aforesaid  statement,  yet,  in  the  summer  and  fall 
seasons  of  the  year,  its  arrival,  he  thinks,  has  been  much  earlier,  but  its  de- 
parture about  the  same  period.  -  That  the  execution  and  superintendence 
of  the  contract  for  .this  route  is  entrusted  exclusively  to  0.  W.  Gaines,  and 
hence,  although  this  respondent  is  ihe  contractor,  he  knows  but  little  more 
in  relation  to  the  inquiries  of  the  inierrogatory  than  other  citizens  upon  the 
route. 

In  answer  to  the  second  interrogatory,  he  says,  that  he  does  not  believe 
that  his  information  and  observation  have  been  such  upon  that  subject  as 
to  enable  him  to  give  a  correct  answer,  or,  indeed,  such  as  to  enable  him  to 
come  to  any  conclusion  satisfactory  to  himself.  That  their  size  and  weight 
vary  much  at  different  times.  He  is  well  satisfied  that  at  times  he 
has  seen  mails  upon  said  route  which  would  weigh  from  three  to  five  hun- 
dred pounds;  yet  such  can  by  no  means  be  said  to  be  average  mails. 

In  answer  to  the  third  interrogatory,  this  respondent  says:  That  himself, 
Oliver  W.  Gaines,  and  Robert  J.  Ward,  have  been  equally  interested  in  the 
present  contract  for  carrying  the  mail  upon  said  route,  from  the  commence- 
ment thereof,  and  are  still  so  interested;  but  when  the  asserted  fact,  or  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Ward  was  interested  in  said  contract,  became  known  to  the  de- 
partment, he  cannot  say:  indeed,  from  his  own  knowledge,  he  could  not 
state  that  the  department  is  now  informed  of  Mr.  W.'s  interest  asserted,  al- 
though he  has  no  doubt  of  the  fact.  All  correspondence  upon  the  business 
of  this  route,  or  in  relation  to  said  contract  with  the  department,  has  been 
carried  on  by  this  respondent  individually  with  the  department. 

J.  F.  ROBINSON. 


And  the  same  interrogatories  being  propounded  to  Robert  Read  on  the 
3d  of  January,  1835,  in  answer  to  the  first  interrogatory,  says,  that,  during 
the  time  embraced  in  the  foregoing  inquiries,  he  was  postmaster  four  months 
and  seven  days;  that  he  can  state,  from  recollection  only,  that  the  arrivals  of 
the  Cincinnati  mail  at  his  office  during  that  period,  varied  from  seven  to 
nine  o'clock,  P.  M.,  and  lelt  at  five  o'clock,  A.  M.  daily. 

In  reply  to  the  second  interrogation,  he  says,  that  he  can  state  nothing 
with  precision;  but  at  times,  when  the  packet  conveyance  for  the  southern 
mail  was  interrupted  by  reason  of  ice  or  otherwise,  the  whole  of  the  mail 
for  Louisville  was  sent  b}^  this  route,  which  made  our  mail  very  bulk^-, 
vveighing,  as  he  supposes,  not  less  than  from  three  to  four  hundred  pounds, 
but  that  the  ordinary  weight  of  the  mail  i^ight  be  stated  at  from  seventy- 
five  to  one  hundred  pounds. 

Touching  the  connexion  of  Mr.  R.  J.  Ward  with  the  firm  of  con- 
tractors, this  respondent  knows  nothing,  except  from  rumor,  and  the  fore- 
2;oinff  statement  of  Mr.  James  F.  Robinson. 

RO    T.RT  READ. 

By  virtue  of  the  annexed  commission,  I  caused  Robert  Read,  late  post- 
master, and  John  T.  Johnson,  present  postmaster  at  Georgetown,  Ken- 
tucky, and  James  F.  Robinson,  to  come  before  me,  in  the  county  court 
clerk's  office  for  the  county  of  Scott,  and  State  of  Kentucky — JohnT.  Johu^ 


165  [  86  ] 

son  on  the  2d  instant,  and  James  F.  Robinson  and  Robert  Read  upon  the 
Sd  of  the  present  instant,  and  at  the  times  and  place  aforesaid,  did  examine 
them,  and  each  of  them,  upon  their  oaths,  upon  the  interrogatories  annexed 
to  said  commission;  which  said  examination  is  contained  in  the  several  re- 
sponses and  statements  of  said  witnesses,  signed  by  each  of  them  with  his 
own  hand:  all  of  which  is  hereby  certified.  Given  from  under  mj'  hand 
and  seal,  this  3d  day  of  January,  1835,  at  Georgetown,  in  the  State  of 
Kentucky. 

BENJAMIN  B.  FORD,  [seal.J 


[Doc.  No.  30.  ] 

October  2,  1$34. 
Benjamin  Bennett,  of  Pennsylvania,  being  first  duly  sworn,  made  the  fol- 
lowing answers  to  the  respective  interrogatories: 

Question.  Were  you  the  brother  and  partner  of  the  late  John  Bennett  in 
the  contract  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  between  Bellefonteand  Mead- 
ville,  Pennsylvania? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  am  his  brother  and  a  partner. 

Question.   When  did  John  Bennett  die? 

Answer.   In  August,  1832. 

Question.  What  Postmaster  General  made  the  first  extra  allowance  to 
you  OR  the  route  from  Bellefonte  to  Meadville,  what  allowance  was  made^ 
and  under  what  contract? 

Answer.  Mr.  McLean  was  the  first  who  made  it.  Our  extra  allowance 
began  on  the  1st  January,  1829,  and  was  five  hundred  dollars.  The  con- 
tract commenced  in  January,  1828. 

Question.  Did  Mr.  McLean  order  the  extra  service,  and  also  fix  the  ex- 
tra allowance? 

Answer.  Mr.  McLean  ordered  the  extra  service  after  application  to  him 
by  my  brother  and  myself,  and  other  petitioners.  He  also  fixed  the  allow- 
ance of  five  hundred  dollars,  to  continue  for  one  year 

Question.  When  did  the  present  Postmaster  General  make  an  extra  allow- 
ance on  said  route,  and  what  did  he  allow,  and  for  what  service? 

Answer.  The  present  Postmaster  General  did  not  make  any  other  extra 
allowance,  but  continued  the  same  which  we  had  before  for  two  years,  and 
the  service  was  the  same^  ending  in  1832. 

Question.  Were  you  and  your  brother  interested  in  the  last  contract  made 
for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  on  said  route? 

Answer.   Yes,  equally. 

Question.  Under  that  contract,  what  length  of  time  did  you  run  through 
in  two  days,  and  what  length  of  time  in  two  days  and  a  half? 

Answer.  We  commenced  running  through  in  two  days,  in  fact,  before  we 
got  the  contract.  Our  previous  contract  was  for  two  horse  coaches,  and  on 
the  first  of  January,  1S32,  there  was  fine  sleighing,  and  we  were  able,  with 
the  same  force,  to  run  through  in  two  days.  I  am  not  able  to  tell  how  long 
we  run  in  two  days.  Some  time  in  the  latter  part  of  February  there  was  a 
freshet,  and  took  ofi'  some  bridges — French  Creek  bridge  and  Sugar  Creek 
bridge.  I  think  this  continued  about  a  month;  and  then  we  began  to  run 
through  in  two  days,  and  have  kept  it  up  ever  since. 

Question.  At  the  last  httings  to  whose  bid  was  the  route  assigned? 


[  86     ]  166 

Answer.  It  was  to  PJatt  &  Co.  in  the  first  instance  it  was  struck  off. 

Question.   Did  they  ever  put  their  stock  on  the  line? 

Answer.   No;  I  never  saw  any. 

Question.  Did  any  other  person  ever  put  on  any  stock  oh  that  road  after 
the  expiration  of  Ihe  contract  of  your  brother  and  yourself,  except  yourselves? 

Answer.  There  was  no  other  ever  put  stock  on  that  road. 

Question.   Was  your  brother  John  at  any  time  the  editor  of  a  newspaper? 

Answer.   Never,  in  my  knowledge. 

Question.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  his  being  an  owner,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  of  a  newspaper  press  in  Meadville?  If  so,  state  all  the  facts  within 
your  knowledge. 

Answer.  Well,  I  don't  know  of  his  being  an  owner  in  whole  or  in  part, 
as  to  myself. 

Question.  Have  you  any  knowledge  that  the  establishment  of  a  newspa- 
per at  Meadville,  Pa.,  had  any  connexion  whatever  with  your  contract  or 
extra  allowance? 

Answer.   Not  any  that  I  know  of. 

Question.  Have  you  any  of  the  letters  of  Mr.  McLean  on  the  extra  al- 
lowance made  by  him? 

Ansvy'er.  No;  my  brother  was  the  oldest,  did  all  the  business  with  the 
departrnent,  and  had  all  the  papers. 

Question.  Was  not  the  first  extra  allowance  made  by  Mr,  McLean  ex- 
pressly made  for  the  purpose  of  putting  additional  stock  on  the  road;  and 
with  the  understanding  or  intimation  that  no  more  was  to  be  allowed  thaa 
for  the  one  year? 

Answer.  As  my  brother  was  going  home,  he  called  at  my  house.  We 
live  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  from  each  other.  He  told  me  that  he  had 
got  an  extra  allowance  of  $500  a  year  for  additional  speed.  I  think  I  asked 
him  what  additional  speed.  He  said,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  from  three  days 
and  a  half  to  two  days  and  seven  hours,  I  rather  complained  that  the  pay 
was^not  enough  for  the  extra  stock  we  would  have  to  put  on  to  do  the  ex- 
tra work.  He  observed  that  he  thought  it  could  be  done  with  putting  on 
two  horses  apiece  more  on  the  line.  My  brother  did  not  tell  me  that  the 
extra  allowance  was  to  be  limited  to  a  year,  and  I  never  understood  so  until 
I  came  this  time  to  Washington. 

Question.  Was  it  not  more  expensive  to  begin  to  run  through  in  two  days 
and  seven  hours,  than  to  continue  when  you  have  commenced? 

Answer.  I  don't  know  there  would  be  any  difference  except  the  first  cost 
-of  four  horses,  and  they  would  have  to  be  kept  up  afterwards. 

Question.  Did  your  or  your  brother  obtain  the  first  extra  allowance  from 
Major  Barry? 

Answer.  Witness  does  not  know  that  his  brother  ever  applied,  nor  that 
either  did;  but  it  vvas  just  continued  on. 

Question.  Was  it  you  or  your  brother  who  came  down  to  get  the  last 
contract? 

Answer.   We  were  both  down. 

Question.   Did  your  brother  ever  tell  you  of  his  contributing  to  the  pur- 
chase of  a  newspaper  press? 
;.   Answer.  He  never  did. 

Question.  How  do  you  know  that  the  contract  you  now  have  was  let  to 
Piatt  &  Co.  ? 
Answer.  We  were  here  at  the  time,  and  heard  it  struck  off  to  jPlatt&Co. 


167  [  86  J 

Question.  When  and  how  did  you  first  know  that  Piatt  &:  Co.  had  not 
got  the  contract? 

Answer.  I  did  not  know  in  Cact  who  had  got  the  contract  until  in  January, 
1S32,  I  canfp  jlown  to  see  whether  we  were  going  to  have  it  at  our  bid.  I* 
rather  complained  to  Mr.  Brown  that  we  had  not  got  knowledge,  of  it 
sooner.  He  to'ld  me  that  Mr.  Piatt  &  Co.  had  withdrawn  their  bid.  The^ 
then  went  into  an  examination  of  the  bid  of  Moore,  Sibo,  &  Co.,  and  said 
that  our  bid,  with  the  improvement,  would  be  considerably  the  lowest,  and. 
gave  us  the  contract,  and  I  returned  home. 

Question.  Did  you  receive  for  the  first  quarter  of  1S32,  cluring  part  of 
which  you  ran  with  two  horses,  and  part  in  two  days  and  seven  hours,  at 
the  rate  of  3,500  dollars  per  annum? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  think  we  did.  We  run  now  in  certain  places,  whea 
we  have  good  sleighing,  with  two  horses. 

Question.  What  were  the  ])oiitics  of  your  brother  in  your  belief  within 
the  last  three,  four,  or  five  years  of  his  life? 

Answer.  He  was  a  uniform  administration  man.  He  was  a  middling  strong 
man  considered  in  his  neighborhood  in  politics;  but  not  a  noisy  one. 

Witness  states  he  was  not  the  original  partner  of  his  brother.  It  was 
Hayes,  and  he  bought  out  Hayes.  He  and  liis  brother  divided  the  labor 
and  pay  equally. 

BEN  J.  BENNETT. 


[Doc.  No.  31.] 

Paterson  Post  Office,  Decembei'  29,  1834. 

Sir:  Below  you  have  answers  to  the  interrogatories  propounded  in  your 
letter  of  the  15th  instant. 

Yours  respectfully, 

M.  E.  DE  WITT. 
Hon.  Felix  Grundy, 

Chairman.  Post  Office  CommiUee. 

Interrogatory  first.  What  is  the  course  of  the  mails  between  Newark  and 
Paterson,  and  the  lengtii  of  time  that  letters  are  in  passing  between  the  two 
places,  either  directly,  or  by  a  circuitous  route  by  New  York  or  other 
places? 

Answer.  Between  this  place  and  Newark  are  two  mail  communications; 
one  by  way  of  New  York,  and  the  other  direct  to  Newark.  By  the  New 
York  route  a  letter  will  reach  Newark  in  seven  hours.  A  letter  from  New- 
ark will  not  arrive  here  until  the  second  day  at  ten  o'clock,  A.  M.  By  the 
direct  route  a  letter  will  pass  between  the  two  places  in  three  hours. 

Interrogatory  second.  What  is  the  average  number  of  letters  and  papers 
which  are  daily  and  weekly  carried  directly  between  the  two  places  by  the 
mail  carried  by  William  Tillow,  the  contractor,  and  what  times  would  the 
same  papers  and  letters  reach  the  two  places  if  this  mail  was  not  carried? 

Answer.  The  average  number  of  letters  passing  between  the  two  oflices 
is  about  thirty-six  weekly,  of  daily  newspapers  six,  of  weekly  papers  it 
jnay  be  twenty. 


[   86  ]  168 

The  same  papers  and  letters  would  reach  Newark  the  same  day  they  are 
mailed,  at  about  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Papers  and  letters  would  not  reach  this  office  until  the  next  day  after  they 
are  mailed. 

Very  respectfully, 

MOSES.  E.  DE  WITT, 

Postmaster,  Paterson,  N.  J. 
December  29,  1834. 

State  of  New  Jersey,  Essex  County,  ss. 

Before  me,  Peter  Sythoff,  one  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  in  and  for  said 
county,  personally  appeared  Moses  E.  De  Witt,  whose  name  is  written  un- 
der the  questions  and  answers  thereto  on  the  other  side;  wiio,  being  duly 
sworn  agreeable  to  law,  upon  his  oath,  saith  that  he  has  made  the  same  ac- 
y<«ording  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  belief,  and  experience  as  postmaster. 

MOSES  E.  DE  WITT. 

Sworn  before  me  at  Paterson,  in  said  county,  this  twenty-ninth  day  of 
December.  A.  D.  1834. 

P.  SYTHOFF, 

Justice  of  the  Peace. 


[Doc.N.oS2.] 

December  27,  1834, 
William  Tillow,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respec- 
tive interrogatories: 

Question  1.  Are  you  contractor  on  the  route  from  Paterson  to  Newark, 
in  New  Jersey?  and  at  what  time  did  you  commence  to  carry  the  mail? 

Answer  1.  This  was  originally  part  of  Mr.  Roy's  contract,  and  he  gave 
it  to  me.  The  contract  was  to  have  been  made  out  to  me;  but  it  never  was 
sent  to  me  to  be  signed. 

Question  2.  Who  first  proposed  to  you  to  take  part  of  that  contract? 

Answer  2.  Mr.  Roy,  I  heard,  had  it;  and  I  wanted  to  get  it,  and  went 
down  to  see  him. 

Question  4.  WHiat  extra  allowances  have  you  got  on  this  route? 

Answer  4.  I  had  S200,  by  the  original  contract,  to  carry  it  twice  a  week. 
The  people  petitioned  for  it  daily.  The  Postmaster  General  ordered  it  so, 
and  I  got  in  proportion,  being  $600.     I  never  saw  the  petitions. 

Question  5.   When,  and  how,  were  you  required  to  carry  it  daily? 

Answer  5.  I  carried  it  twice  a  week  till  the  last  of  February  or  March. 
I  then  carried  it  three  times  a  week  till  1st  May,  and  then  daily.  This  was 
in  1832. 

Question  6.   What  was  the  average  weight  of  the  mail? 
.Answer  6.    Perhaps  it  might  weigh  fifteen  pounds — sometimes  more, 
sometimes  less.     The  distance  is  15  miles. 

Question  7.  Did  any  person  in  the  department  suggest  to  you,  by  Jetter 
or  otherv/iae,  the  propriety  of  taking  this  route  before  you  went  to  see  Mr. 
Roy  about  it? 

Answer  7.  I  cannot  say  that  they  did. 

Question  8.  Can  you  say  that  they  did  not? 

Answer  8.  I  was  told  that  Mr.  Roy  had  this  contract,  and  I  went  to  see- 


169  [  86  ] 

him,  and  got  it,     I  was  told  by  a  person  in  the  department  to  go  to  Roy. 
It  was  Mr.  Brown  who  told  me  to  apply  to  Roy. 

Question  9.   What  connexion  is  Air.  Brown  to  you."* 

Answer  9.  He  is  my  brother-in-law;  my  wife  is  his  sister. 

Question  10.  Did  Mr.  Brown,  at  Ihe  time  he  suggested  to  you  that  you 
might  get  this  contract,  also  suggest  that  extra  allowances  might  be  got  on  it? 

Answer  10.  No,  he  did  not;"  I  did  not  know,  when  1  first  got  it,  that  it 
was  going  to  be  increased.  It  was  a  small  concern;  my  health  was  poor, 
and  1  desired  to  get  it.     I  drive  myself. 

Question  11.  Did  you  apply  for  the  extra  allowance? 

Answer  11.   No,  I  did  not. 

Question  12.  How  were  you  first  infornied  that  the  extra  allowance  was 
made? 

Answer  12.  When  I  took  it  every  day,  I  did  not  know  what  I  was  to  get; 
the  first  I  knew  of  what  would  be  paid  me  was  when  1  got  my  pay.  The 
order  to  run  every  day  came  to  me  in  a  letter  from  the  Postmaster  General. 
I  cannot  say.  but  I  guess  the  mail  weighs  fifteen  pounds. 

Question  13,   What  stock  have  you  on  the  road? 

Answer  13.  One  coach,  and  one  pair  of  horses.  I  paid  $300  for  the 
coach,  and  tii(!  horses  cost  some  more  and  some  less:  the  ones  I  now  have 
are  worth  $200. 

Question  14.  How  was  the  mail  carried  to  Paterson  before  you  took  the 
contract? 

Answer  14.  There  was  no  mail  carried  there;  it  only  went  to  Belleville. 
From  Newark  to  Belleville  it  had  been  carried  on  horseback.  I  carried  it 
in  a  stage  from  the  beginning;  a  few  times,  when  the  roads  were  very  bad, 
I  took  it  on  horseback.  There  is  a  daily  m:»il  from  Novv  York  to  Paterson, 
which  arrives  about  the  same  time  I  do.  It  probably  leaves  New  York 
about  7  or  8  A.  M.  The  mail  from  Newark  to  New  York  leaves  at  4  or  5 
in  the  morning,  or  used  to  do,  at  the  time  my  contract  began. 

WILLIAM  TIL  LOW. 


[Doc.  No.  33.  ] 

New  York,  November  6,  1834. 

Barnabas  Bates,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  re- 
spective interrogatories: 

Question  1.  Did  you  act  as  special  agent  for  the  Post  Office  De])artment 
during  the  year  1S32? 

Answer  1.   I  did,  from  1st  July  to  the  end  of  the  year  and  afterwards. 

Question  2.   From  whom  did  you  receive  your  compensation? 

Answer  2.  Partly  from  the  Post  Olfico  Department,  and  [lartly  from  Mr. 
Gouverneur. 

Question  3.  Under  v/hat  arrangement,  and  why  were  you  paid  any  por- 
tion of  your  compensation  by  the  postmnster  at  New  YorK,  and  in  what 
way  are  such  items  svdtled  belwcen  the  department  and  the  postmaster  at 
New  York? 

Answer  3,  The  arran«;ement  was  made  in  order  to  meet  iwy  convenience; 
my  family  was  in  New  York,  and  I  was  allowed  to  drnw  on  the  depart- 
ment, and  Mr.  Gouveneur^vas  to  pay  me  as  I  wanted  it.  bometimes  I  simpler 
fi'i 


[  86  J  170 

gave  Mr.  Gouverneur  a  receipt  for  the  sums  paid  mc  as  agent  of  ihe  depart- 
ment, and  sometimes  1  drew  directly  on  the  department;  Mr.  Gouverneur 
was  absent,  and  I  got  tiie  money  from  a  friend  on  my  own  draft,  always 
keeping  within  the  amount  due  me  as  near  as  I  could  calculate.  The  practice 
has  been,  and  still  continues,  that,  when  services  such  as  mine  are  rendered 
to  the  Post  Office  Department,  they  are  charged  either  in  the  incidental  or 
contingent  expenses,  of  this  office,  and  settled  with  the  department. 
There  are  three  kinds  of  charges  made  by  the  office  at  this  place: 
1st.  Contingent  expenses,  which  are  provided  for  by  law,  such  as  wax, 
twine,  paper,  and  such  like  articles. 

2d.  Incidental  expenses  which  relate  to  the  particular  office,  such  as  rent, 
fuel,  clerk  hire,  &c. 

3d.  What  are  considered  cash  payments;  such  as  payments  made  for 
wrapping  paper,  twine,  and  blanks  for  other  offices,  repairing  portmanteaus, 
and  sometimes  we  gel  new  ones,  but  rarely  of  late.  I  consider  the  payments 
made  to  me  as  coming  under  the  last  head,  although  I  do  not  know  under 
what  particular  head  or  class  Mr,  Gouverneur  settled  them  with  the  depart- 
ment. 

Question  4.  Do  you  believe  that  your  expenes  amounted  to  ^2  50  per 
day,  exclusive  of  steamboat  and  stage  fare? 

Answer  4.   1  do;  and  that  they  exceeded  that  sum. 

Question  5.    Were  you  actually  engaged  as  special  agent  for  the  Post 
Office  Department  the  whole  number  of  days  charged   in  your  account  of 
30th  April,  1833? 
Answer  5.   I  was. 

Question  6.  What  disposition  is  made  in  this  post  office  of  the  wrappers 
or  envelopes  received  from  other  offices? 

Ansvver  6.  The  porter,  who  has  charge  of  the  office,  sweeps  them  up, 
puts  them  in  a  bag  or  bags,  stows  them  away,  and  afterwards  sold  them:  it 
liad  always  been  considered  his  perquisite.  Its  amount  I  do  not  know. 
Latterly,  I  have  directed  the  good  papers  which  could  be  used  again  to  be 
preserved  for  use. 

Question  7.  Is  this  office  supplied  with  wrapping  paper,  blanks,  twine, 
&c.,  by  an}'  contractor  with  the  department? 

Answer  7.  No.  We  purchase  those  articles  where  we  can  get  them 
cheapest  and  best. 

Question  8.  What  has  been  the  average  price  given  by  you  for  good 
wrapping  paper  since  you  have  been  in  the  office? 

Answer  8.  I  have  bought  some  for  $2  25,  some  for  $2  50,  some  for 
3  dollars;  and  the  highest  was  3  dollars  75  cents.  The  average  would  be 
3  dollars.  It  has  been  bought  in  the  office  some  time  ago  at  4  dollars  50 
cents  to  5  dollars  of  a  similar  kind  which  we  now  use  at  3  dollars  50  cents. 

The  samples  now  shown  to  me  I  would  estimate  as  follows:  of  the  size  of 
No.  10  as  the  standard. 
No.  1  is  very  poor — would  not  be  used  in   our  office,  and  could  be  got  for 

two  dollars,  1  think,  in  our  market. 
No.  2  i  would  estimate  at  two  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents. 
No-  3  at  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 
No.  4  the  same. 

No.  5  at  two  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents. 
No.  6  at  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 
No.  7  at  two  dollars  and  twenty-five  ce-^ts. 


171  I  86] 

^0.  8  St  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

No.  9  at  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

No.  10  I  would  give  three  dollars  seventy-five  cents  for. 

No.  Ill  would  not  buy  for  our  office.     I  suppose  it  could   be  bought  for 

two  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents. 
No.  13  would  be  worth  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 
No.  14,  the  size  it  is,  would  be  worth  three  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents; 

if  a  little  wider,  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 
No.  15  is  worth  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 
No.  16  is  worth  four  dollars. 

Question  9.   What  has  been  the  diminution  in  price  of  wrapping  paper 
within  the  last  three  or  four  years  at  its  current  wholesale  market  orice? 
Answer  9.  About  twenty  per  cent. 

Question  10.  What  portion  of  your  pay  as  special  agent  did  you  receive  at 
this  place? 

Answer  10.   I  should  think  about  half. 

Question  11.  What  do  you  embrace  in  the  items  of  expenses.^ 
Answer  11.  All  that  I  eat  and  drink  myself,  and  what  1  treat  my  friends 
to;  paying  servants  for  porterage,  &c.  I  kept  a  regular  account  of  these  ex- 
penses  at  the  commencement,  for  several  months:  I  found  they  came  to  so 
much  per  month,  and  then  I  took  a  certain  sum  with  me,  and  when  I  return- 
ed I  took  an  account  of  what  remained,  and  charged  the  rest  for  exnenses. 
I  kept  a  regular  distinct  account  of  steamboat  and  stage  fa/e.  Sometimes  I 
paid,  and  sometimes  I  did  not,  but  went  free.  I  cannot  recollect  where  1 
did  not  pay. 

Question  12.  Do  you  know  the  number  of  private  boxes  in  this  office,  and 
what  is  charged  for  their  use  by  the  postmaster? 

Answer  12.  About  fourteen  hundred  at  four  dollars,  per  annum.  Thi.s 
practice,  as  I  understand,  has  prevailed  for  many  years,  pi-obably  for  forty 
3'ears.  The  present  postmaster  has  not  changed  the  price.  This  is  a  per- 
quisite of  the  postmaster,  and  for  ">7hich  he  does  not  account  to  the  depart- 
ment, and  is  matter  of  agreement  between  him  and  those  who  hire  the  boxes. 

Question  13.  Do  you  recollect  the  circumstances  attending  the  runnin'»-  of 
the  express  mail  by  saddle  horses  for  thirty-eight  clays  during  the  winter  of 
1832-3;  the  price  paid  therefor,  tiie  hours  of  departure  and  arrival,  and 
what  papers,  letters,  and  packages  were  carried  in  that  mail? 

Answer  13.  I  have  very  little  knowledge  of  that  mail,  and  am  unable  to 
answer  distinctly  any  one  question  about  it.  I  know  the  fact  merely,  that 
a  private  express  was  set  up  by  the  editors  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce,  and 
perhaps  others,  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  and  afterwards  be- 
tween Washington  and  New  York;  that,  in  consequence  of  the  clamor  raised 
about  the  mail,  tlie  department  felt  itself  called  upon  to  establish  an  express 
mail  to  carry  letters  and  the  daily  exchange  papers  for  the  printers  of  news- 
papers. I  was  in  the  office  at  Philadelphia  as  agent  at  the  time  it  was  run- 
ning, and  saw  the  letters  and  papers  from  Washington  put  into  the  mail  to 
go  to  New  York.  Whether  it  included  the  Baltimore  letters  and  papers  I 
do  not  know.  I  understood  it  included  all  the  letters  and  all  the  daily  news- 
papers of  Washington  to  editors  in  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  f  am  not 
certain  as  to  Philadelphia;  1  only  saw  the  letters  and  papers  for  New  York. 
I  know  nothing  of  the  price  paid,  the  arrival  or  departure,  nor  the  /uimher 
of  days  it  ran;  nor  of  any  written  order  or  authority  from  the  department  :n 
regard  to  it  in  any  respect. 


[86] 


172 


Question  14.  Do  you  know  of  any  contract,  agreement,  or  arrangement 
made  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  Post  Ofiice  Department,  with  any  bank,  or  cor- 
poration, or  individual,  for  the  loan  of  money,  or  lor  permission  to  overdraw, 
to  meet  calls  on,  or  expenses  of,  or  for  the  use  of  the  department?  If  so,  state  it. 
Answer  14.  The  department,  as  I  understand  it,  were  permitted  to  draw  on 
the  Manhattan  Bank,  in  case  they  should  need  it  at  any  time,  a  sum  not  ex- 
ceeding tivo  hundred  thousand  dollars,  to  be  paid  to  the  Manhattan  Company 
whenever  it  should  be  desired,  and  the  resources  of  the  department  would 
enable  them  to  do  it;  allowing  the  bank  for  the  sums  actually  drawn  at  the 
rale  of  six  per  centum  interest. 

The  Commonwealth  Bank  in  Boston  had  a  similar  arrangement  for  fifty 
thousand  dollars. 

The  Commercial  Bank  at  Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire,  for  five  thousand 
on  the  same  terms. 

Question  15.  When  and  by  whom  Were  those  arangements  made? 

Answer  15.  They  were  made  by  me  as  agent  of  the  department.  I  am 
unable  distinctly  to  say  when.  It  was  some  time  in  the  summer  and  fall  of 
1S33.  With  the  Manhattan  Bank  it  was  made  in  July  or  August.  With 
the  others  in  September  or  October. 

Question  16.     What  authority  had  you  for  making  those  arrangements? 

Answer  IG.  The  authority  of  the  Postmaster  General;  partly  verbally 
ami  I'artiV  in  writing.  I  received  a  letter  from  him,  and  when  I  was  at 
Wai-hine;ton  he  requested  me  to  ascertain  if  such  an  arrangement  could  be 
made.  The  verbal  communication  was  received  when  I  was  in  Washington; 
it  V.MS  subsequently  renewed  in  this  city  by  0.  B.  Brown,  the  treasurer  of 
the  department.  13efore  I  went  to  the  north  I  received  a  written  communi- 
cation and  authority  from  the  Postmaster  General. 

When  I  made  the  arrangement  with  the  Manhattan  Bank  I  did  not  show 
them  any  authority.  They  took  my  word  for  it.  I  conversed  with  them 
about  it,  and  then  I  suppose  a  correspondence  took  place  between  them  and 
the  department.     1  showed  my  authority  to  the  others. 

Question  17.    Have  you  that  letter  of  authority?  If  you  have,  produce  it. 

Answer  17.  1  am  not  certain  that  I  have  it;  if  I  have  I  will  produce  it. 

Question  IS.  Have  you  at  any  time  seen,  or  do  you  know  of  any  other  au- 
thority for  making  these  arrangements  or  sanctioning  them? 

Answer  IS.   I  have  not,  nor  do  I  know  of  any. 

Question  19.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  a  loan  by,  or  overdraft  of  ten 
thousand  dollars,  or  other  sum  on  the  Commonwealth  Bank  at  Boston,  or 
either  of  the  others,  which  forms  no  part  of  the  sums  previously  stated? 

Answer  19.   1  know  of  no  si:ch  loan  or  overdraft  on  any  of  those  banks. 

B.  BATES. 


November  8,  1834. 
Bak:? AI3AS  Bates. 

Question  21.  Were  there  any  drafts  drawn  by  James  Rccside,  upon  the 
Post  Office  Department,  and  accepted  by  the  department,  delivered  to  you 
to  be  negotio'.ed  for  the  benefit  of  the  General  Post  Office?  and  if  so,  state 
what  drafts,  when  drawn,  what  time  they  had  to  run,  the  amount  of  each, 
and  when  ai-.U  where  negotiated. 


173  f  86  ] 

Answer  21.  There  were  several  drafts  so  drawn  and  accepted  put  int^ 
m}'  hands. 

Question  22.    At  what  times  were  those  drafts  put  into  your  iiands? 

Answer  22.   I  do  not  recollect. 

Question  23.  Can*  you  recollect  any  one  of  those  drafts;  the  time,  or 
about  the  time  when  it  was  put  into  your  hand?? 

Answer  23.  I  cannot. 

Question  24.  Can  you  tell  within  a  year  what  time  any  one  of  those 
drafts  were  put  into  your  hands? 

Answer  24.  Yes;  in  the  years  1833  and  '34  all  were  put  into  my  liaads 
which  I  received. 

Question  23.   By  whom  were  they  sent  or  delivered  to  you? 

Answer  25.   By  Obadiah  B.  Brown  and  James  Reeside? 

Question  26.  Did  you  raise  money  On  those  drafts,  and  apply  it  to  the 
use  of  the  department? 

Answer  26.   Yes. 

Question  27.   How  did  you  raise  the  money? 

Answer  27.  I  think  one  of  them  1  put  into  the  Manhattan  Bank,  and  it 
was  discounted.  When  discounted,  I  paid  the  money  over  to  the  use  of 
the  department,  agreeably  to  my  instructions. 

Question  2S.  How  did  you  receive  your  instructions  from  tlie  depart- 
ment? 

Answer  2S.  I  received  them  by  letter,  and  I  believe  Mr.  Brown  was 
here  one  time,  and  gave  me  verbal  instructions. 

Question  29.  Can  you  designate  the  time  when  he  gave  you  these  verbal 
instructions? 

Answer  29.  lam  unable  to  state  the  time  or  times  he  was  heie.  He 
was  here  two  or  three  times. 

Question  3G.  Did  he  at  any  of  the  times  he  was  here  bring  and  hand 
over  to  you  any  drafts  drawn  by  Reeside  on  the  department? 

Answer  30.  I  am  not  able  to  say  whetiier  he  did  or  not.  I  cannot  sav 
that  he  did,  or  whether  lie  had  sent  them  by  letter;  and  then,  when  here, 
gave  me  the  instructions. 

Question  31.  Do  you  or  do  you  not  believe  that  he  did  hand  you  some 
of  those  drafts  when  he  was  liere? 

Answer  31.  I  do  not  belive  he  did. 

Question  32.  Do  you  then  believe  that  all  the  drafts  so  received  by  you 
were  sent  from  the  department  by  letter? 

Answer  32.  I  do  not;  some  were  delivered  to  me  by  Mr.  Reeside  him- 
self, and  those  which  were  not  negotiated  I  returnetl  to  him. 

Question  33.  Of  those  which  were  handed  you  by  Mr.  Reeside,  did  you 
take  any  iriemorandum? 

Answer  33.  I  have  no  memorandum  which  I  can  find  at  present.  I  may 
have  it,  but  I  cannot  find  it. 

Question  34.  Did  you  advise  the  department,  by  letter,  of  those  drafts  re- 
ceived from  Mr.  Reeside? 

Answer  34.  I  presume  I  did,  but  I  am  not  able  to  say  positively;  I  am 
accustomed  to  advise  the  department  of  all  my  transactions. 

Question  35.  Can  you  designate  or  describe  any  drafts  which  you  re- 
ceived from  the  hands  of  Mr.  Reeside,  and  negotiated  for  the  use  of  the 
department,  or  can  you  give  the  time  nearly? 

Answer  35.  I  cannot;  but  I  think  it  may  have  been  the  beginning  of  this 
year,  or  latter  end  of  the  last. 


[  86  ]  174 

Question  36.  What  amount  did  you  receive  from  him  about  that  time? 

Answer  36.  I  cannot  exactly  tell:  it  may  have  exceeded  $10,000,  but 
was  less  than  $20,000. 

Question  37.  Where,  and  with  whom  did  you  negotiate  the  paper  which 
you  received  from  the  dcpai  tment,  or  from  Reeside  himself,  with  the  name 
of  Reeside  upon  it? 

Answer  37.  I  have  already  stated  that  one  draft  was  negotiated  in  the 
Manhattan  Bank.  I  sent  to  Boston  to  Mr.  Greene,  the  postmaster  there — 
I  do  not  recollect  if  it  was  one  or  two  drafts — and  he  got  the  money  on 
them  there.  I  do  not  recollect  of  any  more.  It  was  a  small  amount  com- 
p&ratively,  which  was  negotioted,  say  about  $10,000,  as  well  as  I  recollect. 

Question  38.  Was  there  a  check  drawn  by  any  one  in  your  favor  about 
30th  June,  1834,  upon  the  Manhattan  Bank  for  ^10,000,  received  by  you, 
and  applied  by  you  for  the  use  of  the  department,  or  handed  over  by  you 
to  any  person  for  its  use.-* 

Answer  38.  I  have  acted  as  agent  to  the  department,  and  as  such  have 
received  from  them,  from  time  to  time,  several  checks  upon  different  banks, 
and  have  applied  them  to  the  uses  of  the  department  according  to  my  in- 
structions received  at  the  time  of  sending  the  drafts,  or  before.  1  do  not 
recollect  this  dsaft  of  $10,000  particularly:  I  may  have  received  it,  ornot. 

Question  39.  Have  you  received  during  the  course  of  this  summer,  from 
the  department,  any  draft  drawn  by  James  Reeside  in  your  favor  on  the 
Manhattan  Bank,  which  you  handed  over  to  Mr.  Governeur  to  be  applied 
tor,  the  benefit  of  the  department? 

Answer  39.  Not  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Question  40.  Did  you  receive  checks  within  the  summer  of  1834,  drawn 
by  the  department  in  your  favor,  one  on  the  Bank  of  Ithica  for  1,200  dol- 
lars, one  on  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia  for  1,000  dollars,  one  on  the  Bank 
of  Concord,  N.  H.,  for  1,500  dollars,  one  on  Boston,  Mass.,  for  1,300  dol- 
lars, which  you  handed  over  to  Mr.  Governeur  for  the  use  of  the  depart- 
ment? And  if  so,  how  was  Mr.  Reeside  connected  with  the  transactions? 

Answer  40.  I  received  checks  upon  different  banks;  whether  on  the  banks 
named  I  am  not  able  precisely  to  say;  but  I  delivered  no  such  checks  to 
Mr.  Governeur,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection;  nor  was  Mr.  Reeside  con- 
nected with  those  checks,  according  to  my  information. 

Question  41.  Had  not  Mr.  Reeside,  in  some  way  or  other,  directly  or  in- 
directly, some  interest  or  connexion  with  those  checks  or  some  of  them, 
so  that  they  ought  to  appear  in  his  account  either  as  a  debit  or  credit?  State 
from  your  own  knowledge,  or  from  what  you  have  heard. 

Answer  41.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  any  such  interest  or  connexion. 

Question  42.  Did  you  ever  apply  any  of  the  money  or  assets  received 
from  the  department,  or  for  its  use,  in  any  other  manner  than  by  depositing 
it  in  the  Manhattan  Bank  as  heretofore  stated?  If  you  have,  state  it. 

Answer  42.  I  deposited  all  sums  which  I  so  received  in  the  Manhattan 
Bank,  except  the  sums  which  I  paid  to  Mr.  Governeur. 

B.  BATES. 

[  Doc.  No.  34.  ] 

Boston,  October  22,  1834. 

Nathaniel  Greene,  postmaster,  having  appeared  before  the  committee,  and 
being  first  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective  in- 
terrogatories as  hereinafter  set  forth: 


175  [  86   ] 

Question  1.  Were  you  at  one  period  a  contractor  for  furnishing  paper, 
twine,  and  executing  printing  for  the  Post  Office  Department? 

Question  2.  Who  was  your  immediate  predecessor  in  that  business,  and 
who  were  interested  in  it? 

Question  3.  Upon  what  terms  did  he  or  they  furnish  paper  and  twine?  If 
you  have  any  written  evidence  on  that  subject,  please  to  produce  it. 

Question  4.  Can  you  furnish  a  copy  of  your  contract  with  the  Post  Office 
Department  for  the  supply  of  the  above  named  articles? 

Question  5.  Have  you  any  interest  whatever  in  the  existing  contract  with 
said  department  for  the  foregoing  articles? 

Question  6.  Had  you,  or  have  you  now,  any  interest  in  a  paper  factory 
from  which  the  contract  with  the  department  is  or  has  been  filled? 

Question  7.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  any  deficiency  in  quality  of 
either  paper  or  twine  furnished  for  the  department  to  be  used  or  distributed 
at  the  Boston  post  office? 

Question  8.  What  price  has  been  given  by  the  difierent  contractors  for 
paper  and  twine? 

Question  9.  What  risk,  labor,  and  expense  is  the  contractor  put  to  in  com- 
plying with  his  contract,  after  he  has  received  the  wrapping  paper  and 
twine  from  the  manufacturers? 

Question  10.  What  profits  did  you  make  in  a  year  upon  your  contract 
with  the  department? 

Question  11.  Have  you  any  pecuniary  interest  in  or  connexion  with  the 
newspaper  called  the  Boston  Morning  Post,  or  Statesman,  or  any  other 
newspaper;  and  if  not,  at  what  time  did  you  part  with  your  interest? 

Question  12.  Does  it  frequently  happen  that  in  a  large  lot  of  paper,  ma- 
nufactured at  the  same  mill  and  at  the  same  time,  some  quires  or  reams  of 
wrapping  paper  will  be  of  bad  quality  and  the  greater  part  of  good  quality? 
■If  so,  state  the  causes  which  produce  it. 

Question  13.  Do  you  know  if  the  Postmaster  General  was  ever  notified 
that  there  were  any  complaints  that  the  wrapping  paper  distributed  through 
the  Boston  post  office  was  defective;  or  had  he  at  any  time  a  knowledge 
that  you,  while  a  contractor,  had  any  interest  in  a  paper  mill  from  which 
the  material  was  furnished? 

Answer  to  the  first  interrogatory.  Yes,  as  a  member  of  the  firm  of  True 
and  Greene. 

Answer  to  the  2d.  Thomas  Rov/e  was  my  immediate  predecessor,  and 
sole  contractor,  so  far  as  I  know.  There  was  another  contract  signed 
Thomas  Rowe  and  Company,  under  which  I  did  not  act,  being  informed  by 
the  department,  by  letter  23d  November,  1826,  that  it  had  expired,  which 
is  annexed,  marked  A. 

Answer  to  the  3d.  I  have  the  contract  (marked  B)  which  he,  Thos.  Rowe, 
assigned  to  True  and  Greene,  dated  2d  February,  1820,  signed  by  R.  J. 
Meigs,  then  Postmaster  General: 

For  printing  mails  received,  (blanks)  received  for  distribution,  and  mailis 
sent,  Jmir  dollars  per  ream. 

For  ruling  the  same  with  feint  lines,  four  dollars  per  ream. 
Post  bills,  with  and  without  si^-nature,  one  dollar  and  a  half  per  ream. 
Accounts  current,  four  dollars  per  ream. 
:'.  The  paper  for  printing  the  above  blanks  to  be  paid  for  at  the  following 
|)rices: 

Eoyalf  for  mails  received,  and  received  for  distribution,  nine  dollars  per 
ream. 


[  86  ]  176 

Super  royal  for  mails  sent,  twelve  dollars  per  ream. 

Cap  No.  1,  for  accounts  current,  five  dollars  per  ream. 

Cap  No.  2,  for  post  bill?,  two  dollars  and  three  quarters  per  ream. 
-T  Wrapping  paper,  super  royal,  seven  dollars  per  ream. 

For  time  and  trouble  by  contractor  in  making  up  the  blanks  into  pack- 
.iges  for  the  several  offices  as  called  for,  contractor  allowed  two  hundred  dol- 
lars per  year. 

During  the  time  for  which  Mr.  Rowe  continued  contractor,  he  charged, 
as  near  as  I  can  recollect,  fifty  dollars  per  quarter,  for  the  wrapping  pa- 
per and  twine  used  in  making  up  the  packages;  which  charge  I  continued  (o 
make  for  a  quarter  or  two,  until  ordered  by  the  department  to  discontinue 
it. 

The  charge  of  seven  dollars  for  wrapping  paper,  «uper  royal,  as  above,  was 
changed  on  the  6th  day  of  December,  1S21,  to  six  dollars.  This  was  be- 
fore the  assign  ment  to  True  and  Greene,  v/hich  took  place  on  the  10th  day 
of  June,  1826. 

A  further  contract,  dated  4th  November,  1S20,  to  begin  1st  January,  1821, 
by  the  department,  with  Thomas  Rowe  &  Co.,  was  also  handed  over,  and  is 
hereunto  annexed,  marked  C,  which  as  heretofore  stated  had  expired.  Accom- 
panying the  above  contract,  marked  A,  Mr.  Rowe  handed  over  the  follow- 
ing memorandum,  marked  D. 

A  third  contract,  marked  E,  was  also  handed  over,  which  is  hereunto  an- 
nexed, together  with  letters  relating  thereto,  marked  F,  G,  H. 

The  other  letters,  marked  I,  K,  L,  I\l,  N,  will  show  the  history  of  the 
transactions  between  the  General  Post  Office  Department  and  the  contractors 
at  Boston  up  to  the  present  time. 

Answer  to  the  4th.  Tliis  is  fully  set  forth  in  answer  to  the  third  interro- 
gatory. 

Answer  to  the  5th.  I  have  none  whatever.  I  was  appointed  postmaster 
of  Boston  in  March  or  April,  1S29,  to  take  effect  on  the  1st  of  July;  on  the 
5th  day  of  May  of  the  same  year  I  retired  from  the  firm  of  True  and  Greene, 
and  public  notice  was  given  in  the  newspapers  on  that  day.  I  transferred 
my  interest  to  Charles  G.  Greene.     A  ropy  of  the  notice  is  as  follows: 

Notice. — Nathaniel  Greene  has  this  day  retired  from,  and  Charles  G. 
Greene  has  acceded  to  the  firm  of  True  and  Greene.  The  Boston  States- 
man will  henceforth  be  published  by  Charles  G.  Greene,  at  the  office  of 
True  and  Greene,  Merchant's  Hall,  Boston. 

[Signed]  BENJ.  TRUE, 

NATH'L.  GREENE, 
CHARLES  G.  GREENE. 

May  5,  1S29. 

Answer  to  the  6th.  I  purchased  an  interest  in  a  paper  mill  at  PepperelJ, 
a  little  more  than  a  year  ago.  I  purchased  of  a  Mr.  Bullard,  who  was 
of  the  firm  of  Bullard  and  Emmerson,  of  that  place.  That  mill  was  one  of  a 
number  from  which  True  and  Greene  had  theretofore  purchased  paper. 
I  sold  out  about  the  first  of  the  present  month,  having  held  the  interest 
something  more  than  a  year.  During  the  time  I  was  owner  in  part,  the 
mill  was  not  in  operation  more  than  about  four  months.  There  were  some 
sales  of  paper  made  to  True  and  Greene,  or  Charles  G.  Greene,  during  the 
time  the  mill  was  in  operation,  principally  during  the  last  summer.  On 
being  further  interrogated  on  the  same  subject,  deponent  further  saiih:  That 


177  [  86  ] 

no  change  of  prices  took  place  from  what  was  paid  to  that  and  other  mills 
before  and  at  the  time  when  deponent  was  interested  in  said  paper  mill. 

The  samples  were  continued  the  same,  and  the  quality  which  was  furnish- 
ed to  the  contractor  was  better  on  an  average  than  any  previously  fur- 
nished to  my  knowledge,  from  that  or  any  other  mill,  to  the  same  contractor. 

Deponent  divested  himself  of  his  interest  at  a  loss  of  3,000  dollars,  and 
never  did  receive  one  cent  by  way  of  profit  in  any  way  or  shape  from  the 
said  concern. 

Answer  to  the  7th  interrogatory.  I  never  heard  a  complaint  of  the  twine 
from  the  first  day  of  the  contract  up  till  the  present  time. 

There  was  a  complaint  I  heard  within  the  last  few  months,  about  the 
quality  of  the  wrapping  paper  distributed  from  Boston.  This  was  from 
three  or  four  places  all  about  the  same  time.  They  were  made  to  the 
department,  and  from  thence  were  sent  on  here  to  be  examined  into.  An 
examination  was  made  at  the  wareroom  of  the  contractor,  C.  G.  Greene; 
and  it  was  found  that  there  was  a  lot  of  paper  deficient  in  sizing,  which 
Was  immediately  picked  out,  and  returned  to  the  manufacturer  by  the  con- 
tractor. It  had  been  received  by  the  contractor  from  looking  well,  and  he 
did  not  know  of  its  deficiency  until  the  complaints  were  made.  The  manu- 
facturers were  Emmerson  and  Company.  A  part  of  the  lot  which  was 
deficient  had  been  distributed,  and  the  remainder  of  the  lot  was  returned 
to  the  manufacturer. 

Answer  to  the  Slh  interrogatory.  The  twine  bills  to  the  manufacturers 
varied  from  thirty  to  thirty-two  cents  per  pound,  and  the  wrapping  paper 
generally  cost  three  dollars  and  a  half;  sometimes  four  dollars  were  paid  for 
s.Tiall  portions,  which  were  specially  ordered,  of  a.g.*rater  weight. 

Answer  to  the  9th  interrogatory.  The  contractor  has  to  keep  a  ware- 
room  and  clerk  to  attend  to  tlie  distribution.  The  printed  blanks  take  a 
good  deal  of  room.  At  other  places  than  Boston  he  has  to  employ  agents,  to 
whom  he  allows,  by  special  arrangement,  ten  per  cent,  for  his  trouble.  He 
has  to  pay  cost  of  freight,  premium  of  insurance,  and  incidental  expenses, 
such  as  drayage,  wrapping,  and  twine  for  the  bundles:  the  expenses  of 
wraj)ping,  twine  and  putting  up,  having  been  formerly  charged  to  the  de- 
partment, are  not  now  allowed — all  now  being  done  for  the  specific  sum 
named  in  the  contract. 

The  labor  bestowed  cannot  well  be  expressed,  as  it  depends  entirely  on 
the  amount  and  extent  of  the  orders  from  the  respective  post  offices,  which 
are  coming  in  every  day. 

Answer  to  the  lOth  interrogatory.  I  should  think  that,  after  paying  all  ex- 
penses of  the  whole  contract  taken  together,  the  profit  might  be  fifteen  pr.  ct. 

The  twine,  in  proportion  to  its  amount,  is  the  most  profitable;  the  wrap- 
ping paper  next,  and  the  printed  blanks  are  the  least  profitable. 

Answer  to  the  11th  interrogatory.  I  never  had  an  interest  in  the  Morn- 
ing Post,  nor  have  I  ever  had  any  interest  in  the  Statesman  since  May, 
1829,  nor  in  any  other  newspaper  now  nor  since  then. 

Answer  to  the  12th  interrogatory.  All  paper  is  liable  to  be  injured  in 
the  process  of  drying,  especially  by  the  frost,  in  sizing,  and  divers  other 
causes,  as  are  well  known  to  all  manufacturers  of  paper:  the  defect  arising 
from  free^^ing  out  the  sizing  cannot  well  be  ascertained  until  tested  by  its  use. 

Answer  to  the  13th  interrogatory.     I  know  of  nothing  else  in  answer  to 
the  first  part  of  the  interrogatory  than  what  has  been  stated  in  answer  to 
4he  7th  interrogatory. 
23 


[  S6  ]  178 

In  answer  to  the  second  part,  I  do  not  know  that  he  had,  nor  have  I 
any  reason  to  believe  that  he  had  any  knowledge  of  my  being  concerned  in 
any  paper  mill. 

Question  14  (by  Mr.  Knight).  At  what  time  was  it  that  the  mill  in 
which  you  were  interested  furnished  the  contractor  in  Boston  with  the 
good  paper  previously  mentioned.-* 

Answer  14.  Between  1st  May  and  last  of  July,  1834,  at  different 
times,  about  300  reams  were  furnished  during  that  time;  it  was  of  the  same 
size  as  the  sample. 

Question  15.  Did  you  discover  in  your  office  any  of  the  paper  com- 
plained of  by  the  department? 

Answer  15.     No.  I  heard  no  complaint. 

Question  16.  Is  not  the  price  of  printing  generally  much  reduced  from 
what  it  was  in  1820? 

Answer  16.  It  is  generally  reduced;  competition  and  greater  facilities 
in  printing  have  reduced  the  prices.  I  do  not  know  as  to  the  price  of 
ruling. 

Question  17.  Had  you  a  wareroom  in  this  city  when  you  were  con- 
tractors? 

Answer  17.  We  paid  for  an  occasional  privilege  of  deposite  for  our 
paper  here. 

Question  18.   What  was  the  amount  paid  for  that  privilege? 

Answer  IS.  It  was  rather  an  interchange  of  convenience,  by  the  labor 
of  a  clerk,  which  balanced  the  account.  When  I  entered  into  the  firm  my 
brother  was  not  a  partner  of  Emmerson  &  Co.,  of  which  my  brother  hired 
an  additional  room,  and  agreed  to  let  one  of  his  clerks  keep  the  accounts; 
and  I  was  to  pay  the  additional  cost  or  hire  of  the  room.  1  cannot  now 
state  what  I  paid. 

Question  19  (by  Mr.  Southard).  How  long  have  you  had  the  papers  which 
you  produced  here  yesterday  in  your  possession? 

Answer  19.  My  attention  was  called  to  the  subject  by  the  report  of  the 
Post  Office  Committee  of  the  Senate  last  session,  and  I  wished  to  recall  the 
subject  to  my  mind.  I  searched  for  the  papers;  some  of  them  I  had  myself, 
and  some  I  got  my  brother's  clerk  to  look  up.  The  early  papers  were  in 
my  own  possession;  those  of  later  date  were  on  my  brother's  files. 

Question  20.  Have  you  had,  or,  as  far  as  you  know,  have  True  and  Greene 
had  any  other  contract  or  agreement  with  the  department  than  those  handed 
in  yesterday? 

Answer  20.  No:  I  have  no  knowledge  of  any. 

Question  21.  Has  there  been,  in  any  instance,  any  change  in  the  terms  on 
which  the  materials  were  to  be  furnished,  not  mentioned  in  those  papers 
furnished  by  you  yesterday? 

Answer  21.   Not  within  my  recollection. 

Question  22.  When  and  by  whom  were  you  requested  to  bring  those 
papers  before  the  committee? 

Answer  22.  I  am  not  aware  that  any  one  did  so  request  me.  I  under- 
stood that  the  matter  was  to  be  overhauled.  I  had  a  conversation  with  my 
brother,  and  we  supposed  they  would  be  Wanted,  and  it  would  be  better  for 
me  to  bring  them,  so  that  the  fullest  explanation  should  be  given  to  the  com- 
mittee.    The  propriety  of  bringing  them  was  suggested  by  Mr.  Grundy. 

Question  23.  Are  not  much  larger  quantities  of  those  materials  required 
from  the  contractor  now  than  at  the  date  of  the  contract  of  1S20? 


11  }j  L   ^"  J 

Answer  23.  The  demand  increases  from  year  to  year. 

Question  24.  Taking  into  consideration  the  quantities  to  be  furnished  at 
different  times,  and  the  facilities  of  manufacturing  and  of  procuring  them, 
may  not  the  materials  be  furnished  at  a  cheaper  rate  than  formerly? 

Answer  24.  I  think,  when  we  commenced  the  contract,  twine  was  fur- 
nished by  the  manufacturer  at  32  cents  per  pound;  and  latterly,  it  fell  to  30 
cents.  Mr.  Rowe  was  in  the  habit  generally  of  paying  four  dollars  for  his 
wrapping  paper  to  the  manufacturer.  The  manufacturers  furnish  a  better 
paper  now  for  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

Question  25.  Has  there  been  any  other  contract  with  any  other  indivi- 
dual for  supplying  the  eas  rn  States  and  New  York,  or  either,  and  with 
whom? 

Answer  25.  There  was  a  contract  for  four  years  with  Simeon  Ide  of 
Vermont,  which  expired  on  or  near  1st  January,  1830,  I  think.  I  do  not 
recollect  the  terms  of  the  contract. 

Question  26.  What  portion  of  the  United  States  have  True  and  Greene 
supplied  as  contractors? 

Answer  26.   At  different  times  they  have  supplied  different  portions. 

The  first  contract  assigned  by  Rowe  to  True  and  Greene  was  for  New 
England  and  the  western  part  of  New  York,  including  Albany. 

When  Mr.  Ide  got  the  contract  for  New  England,  Mr.  McLean  continued 
to  True  and  Greene  the  western  part  of  New  York;  and  added  to  it  the 
eastern  part  of  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  New  Jersey. 

In  some  instances  postmasters,  seeing  the  material  furnished  by  True  and 
Greene,  have  written  on  to  the  department,  and  got  permission  to  send  to 
True  and  Greene.     These  were  a  few  cases. 

The  next  change  or  thing  that  occurred  was  a  letter  from  Mr.  Barry, 
heretofore  inserted,  and  marked  M- 

On  expiration  of  Mr.  Ide's  contract  for  New  England,  True  and  Greene 
were  ordered  to  furnish  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island, 
in  addition  to  their  former  order.     These  are  essentially  the  changes. 

Question  27.   Who  received  the  balance  of  the  contract  of  Mr.  Ide? 

Answer  27.  Hill  and  Barton  of  Concord;  and,  I  presume,  at  the  same 
time  that  True  and  Greene  received  theirs. 

Question  28.  Were  there  any  advertisements  of  the  contracts  at  the  time 
these  were  given? 

Answer  28.  No,  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  29.  By  what  contract  was  the  contractor  allowed  jSSOO  per 
year  extra,  for  distributing,  as  previously  mentioned? 

Answer  29.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  contract  of  Mr.  Rowe,  dated  2d 
February,  1820. 

Question  30.  Are  packages  made  up  for  all  and  every  office  furnished  by 
the  contractor,  or  are  there  only  some  particular  offices  furnished  by  pack- 
ages? 

Answer  30.  The  packages  are  furnished  to  each  separate  office,  eitlier  by 
the  contractor  or  his  agent,  whom  he  pays  for  doing  it.  Small  packages 
are  sent  by  mail,  free  of  postage.  Large  packages  are  forwarded  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  contractor. 

Question  31.  Was  the  office  at  Providence  furnished  with  the  same  ma- 
terials as  the  other  offices? 

Answer  31.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  difference.  I  know  nothing  about 
what  particular  thing  was  furnished  to  any  particular  office,  as  distinguished 
from  anv  other  office. 


[86] 


ISO 


Question  32.  Have  you  certified  the  accounts  of  True  and  Greene,  and 
for  how  long? 

Answer  32.  I  have  certified  them  from  April,  1830,  until  about  nine 
months  ago — when  directions  were  given  to  me  by  the  department  to  cer- 
tify only  as  to  quality.  The  contractor  being  required  to  furnish  transcripts 
from  his  daily  entries,  accompanied  by  the  original  orders  from  the  post- 
masters as  vouchers;  and  the  clerk  who  filed  the  orders  was  obliged  to  ac- 
company the  whole  with  his  affidavit,  verifying  the  account. 

Question  33.  While  you  certified  formerly  as  to  the  whole,  did  you  re- 
gularly examine  all  the  articles  both  as  to  quality  and  quantity? 

Answer  33.  I  visited  the  wareroom  generally  every  day  or  two  where  the 
articles*  were  putting  up,  and  exercised  a  general  supervision  of  the  whole. 
From  time  to  time,  I  compared  them  with  the  samples;  but  I  had  become 
so  familiar  with  the  qualities  of  the  samples,  that  I  could  tell  without  the 
sample. 

Question  34.  Upon  what  evidence  did  you  certify  that  the  articles  were 
furnished? 

Answer  34.  Upon  the  evidence  of  this  daily  supervision,  and  my  know- 
ledge of,  and  confidence  in  the  clerks  employed. 

Question  35.  How  often  do  contractors  furnish  these  materials  to  the  re- 
spective offices  which  are  to  be  supplied? 

Answer  35.  To  small  offices  they  send  a  year's  supply:  to  large  offices 
they  send  as  often  as  suits  the  convenience  or  wants  of  the  postmaster — 
never  exceeding  a  year's  supply  at  one  time.  The  general  understanding  is 
to  send  a  year's  supply,  but  to  larger  offices  they  sometimes  send  a  quarter's 
supply,  or  six  months,  consulting  the  convenience  of  the  postmaster  as  to ., 
quantity.  '' 

Question  36.  By  what  contract  or  authority  was  the  charge  of  seven 
dollars  for  super-royal  wrapping  paper  reduced  to  six  dollars,  as  mentioned 
in  your  answer  to  the  second  interrogatory? 

Answer  36.  It  appears  by  an  endorsement  on  the  contract  of  Mr.  Rowe 
previous  to  the  assignment  to  True  and  Greene. 

Question  37.   Are  True  and  Greene  still  the  contractors? 

Answer  37.  True  and  Greene  have  dissolved  partnership^sometime  since. 
C.  G.  Greene  continues  the  business  as  successor  to  True  and  Greene. 

Question  SS.  Are  the  papers  which  you  have  produced  all  that  you  know 
of,  going  to  show  the  history  of  the  contracts  and  supplies  between  True 
and  Greene,  C.  G.  Greene,  and  the  department? 

Answer  38.  They  are  all  that  I  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  when  I 
made  the  selection. 

Question  3&.  In  relation  to  these  contracts  and  their  execution,  have  you 
copies  of  the  letters  of  True  and  Greene  to  the  department? 

Answer  39.   No.     I  have  not,  that  I  know  of. 

Question  40.  Will  you  inform  the  committee  on  what  terms  you  parted 
with  your  interest  in  the  newspaper  called  the  Statesman,  and  printed  in 
Boston? 

Answer  40.  I  told  my  brother,  C.  G.  Greene,  that  he  might  take  my 
place  in  the  firm.  The  firm  was  at  that  time  in  debt  more  than  the  esta- 
blishment was  worth.  I  proposed  to  him  to  go  in  immediately  and  take  my 
place  in  all  respects;  and  that  at  a  subsequent  and  more  convenient  time  we 
would  amicably  arrange  what  portion  of  the  old  debts  it  would  be  proper 
and  right  for  him  to  assume  as  a  consideration  for  my  interest.    He  did  soj    ^ 


\.^ 


181  [  86 

and  my  interest  censed  at  that  time  in  all  the  subsequent  proceedings  of  the 
firm.  At  a  subsequent  period  that  business  was  settled,  and  the  new  firm 
assumed  rising  eight  thousand  dollars  of  the  old  debt,  I  assumed  the  ba- 
lance, and  have  paid  a  part  of  it.  I  released  the  old  firm  from  responsi- 
bility of  that  part  which  I  was  to  pay,  and  became  individually  responsible 
for  if. 

Question  41.  Is  there  no  event  in  which  you  will  have  a  rif^ht  to  claim 
from  your  brother,  or  the  firm,  the  portion  of  the  debt  which  you  paid  and 
assumed  for  the  old  debts? 

Answer  41.  No.  There  is  no  promise,  or  expectation,  nor  agreement, 
written  o  rverbal,  expressed  or  implied,  by  which  I  am  to  be  refunded 
any  portion  of  that  money  so  paid  and  assumed 

Qusetion  42.  Did  your  parting  with  your  interest  in  the  Statesman  con- 
vey to  C.  G.  Greene  your  interest  in  the  contract  with  the  department? 

Answer  42.  Yes. 

Question  43.  Was  Ihe  contract  with  the  department  a  part  of  the  pro- 
perty of  the  firm,  which  owned  the  Statesman? 

Answer  43.  The  contract  was  between  True  and  Greene  and  the  de- 
partment; no  other  was  interested  in  it.  My  interest  in  it  passed  with  the 
assignment  to  True  and  Greene. 

Question  44.  Can  you  state  precisely  the  time  when  complaints  were 
made  about  the  wrapping  paper,  and  by  whom? 

Answer  44.  1  cannot  precisely;  but  it  was  a  few  months  ago.  I  cannot 
say  by  whom. 

Question  45.  Was  it  before  or  after  the  good  paper  was  furnished  from 
the  paper  mill  of  which  you  have  spoken? 

Answer  45.  I  should  think  it  vvus  about  the  time  it  was  furnished,  but 
before  it  was  distributed. 

Question  46.  Had  you  certified  to  the  account  which  contained  the  paper 
complained  of? 

Answer  46.  1  do  not  know  what  account  contained  the  paper  complained 
of;  but  having  certified  all  the  accounts,  must  have  certified  that  which  was 
complained  of. 

Question  47.   Who  was  the  contractor  who  furnished  that  paper? 

Answer  47.   I  presume  it  must  have  been  C.  G.  Greene. 

Question  48.  Did  you  receive  instructions  to  inquire  into  the  deficiency 
of  the  paper  complained  of,  and  by  whom  was  the  investigation  made? 

Answer  48.  When  I  received  the  letter  from  the  department  I  proceeded 
to  my  brother's  office  and  informed  him  of  the  fact.  We  found  a  lot  of  pa- 
per defective  in  sizing,  which  I  directed  him  not  to  use  any  more.  The 
paper  «as  returned,  so  much  as  remained,  to  the  men  who  made  it,  to  wit, 
And  Emmerson  and  Nathaniel  Greene. 

Question  49.  How  do  you  know  that  this  paper  had  been  received  by  the 
contractor  from  looking  well,  and  that  he  did  not  know  of  its  deficiency 
until  complaints  were  made? 

Answer  19.  Because  I  siw  the  i);ipcr  among  other  lots  when  it  was 
brought  in  from  tlie  mill.  Its  appearonce  was  equally  fair  with  any  other 
paper,  the  defect  of  sizing  not  being  apparent,  hut  to  be  detected  by  use. 

Question  50.  How  did  you  know  that  the  samples  sent  by  the  department 
of  the  paper  complained  of  was  part  of  ihc  lot  received  IVom  Emmerson 
and  Co.  ? 


X  86  ]  182 

Answer  50.  By  taking  the  sample  returned  as  complained  of,  examining 
the  parcels  of  paper  on  hand,  and  comparing  it  with  them. 

Question  51.  What  share  did  you  purchase  in  the  mill? 

Answer  51.  One  half 

Question  52.   From  what  other  mills  did  True  and  Greene  procure  paper? 

Answer  52.  I  only  know  by  going  in  and  out  of  their  store.  They  were 
in  the  habit  of  buying  from  William  Parker  and  Co.,  Nash,  Haywood,  and 
Co.,  and  of  Jonas  Kendall.  The  wrapping  paper,  latterly,  principally  from 
Kendall. 

Question  53.  Had  True  and  Greene  any  interest  in  that  mill  ? 

Answer  53.  No;  they  never  had. 

Qustion  54.  Can  you  state  the  date  of  your  purchase  of  the  interest  in 
the  mill  ? 

Answer  54,   It  was  the  30th  day  of  June,  1833. 

Question  55.  Can  you  slate  the  account  of  paper  furnished  by  the  mill, 
while  you  were  part  owner,  to  C.  G.  Greene,  contractor? 

Answer  55.  The  whole  amount  of  wrapping  paper  furnished  was  441 
reams.     The  other  paper  he  does  not  recollect,  but  it  was  small. 

Question  56.  Had  any  complaint  been  made  of  the  paper  before  you  were 
a  partner  in  the  mill  ? 

Answer  56.  The  complaint  of  which  I  have  spoken  is  the  only  one  which 
I  recollect. 

Question  57.  Was  the  price  which  you  mention  in  your  answer  to  the 
eighth  interrogatory  the  wholesale  price  generally  for  such  quality  of  paper? 

Answer  57.  It  was  the  wholesale  price,  and  could  not  be  got  for  that, 
without  it  was  made  on  large  contract. 

Question  5S.  If  the  paper  usually  furnished  was  as  good  as  the  samples 
furnished  by  the  department,  by  what  authority  were  the  small  parcels, 
specially  ordered,  of  greater  weight,  and  for  what  purpose  ? 

Answer  58.  The  postmasters  expressed  their  desire  to  have  paper  of  that 
quality  for  putting  up  large  parcels.  They  were  furnished  accordingly  by 
the  contractors,  without  increase  of  charge  to  the  department. 

Question  59.  Are  not  all  the  expenses  mentioned  in  your  answer  to  the 
9th  interrogatory  embraced  by  the  contract,  and  taken  into  consideration  by 
the  contractor  when  he  makes  his  contract,  and  are  they  not  the  same  as 
every  other  dealer  has  to  bear  when  he  buys  and  sells  such  paper? 

Answer  59.  It  is  taken  into  consideration  when  he  makes  his  contract;  as 
to  the  last  part  of  the  inquiry,  I  cannot  tell  whether  they  are  the  same  or  not. 

Question  60.  In  what  places  has  the  contractor  an  agent  to  receive  and 
dispose  of  his  paper? 

Answer  60.   At  Philadelphia  and  Albany. 

Question  61.  How  do  you  know  that  the  contractor  has  an  arrangement 
with  his  agents  by  which  he  pays  them  ten  per  cent.? 

Answer  61.  I  made  the  arrangement  myself  when  I  was  contractor,  by  per- 
mission of  iVIr.  McLean,  then  Postmaster  General ;the  arrangement  continued 
while  I  was  contractor,  and  have  reason  to  believe  it  continues  until  this  time. 

Question  62.  Does  the  contractor  pay  this  allowance  out  of  his  own 
pocket,  or  is  he  allowed  it  at  the  department? 

Answer  62.  The  contractor,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  allowed  nothing  but 
what  is  expressed  on  the  face  of  his  contract;  he  pays  this  allowance  out  of 
his  own  pocket. 

Question  63.  Can  you  show  the  letter  )'0u  received  from  the  department 


183  [  8S  ] 

Answer  63.   I  have  it  not.     I  do  not  think  I  preserved  it. 

Question  64.  Is  the  sample  of  wrapping  paper  now  presented  the  same 
as  furnished  by  the  department  to  True  and  Greene,  on  the  22d  January, 
1830,  and  numbered  (Nine)  by  Which  contracts  were  to  be  made? 

Answer  64.  Yes;  and  the  sample  numbered  (Ten)  constitutes  three 
hundred  out  of  the  four  hundred  and  forty  one  reams  as  heretofore  stated  to 
have  been  furnished  by  the  mill  of  Emmerson  &  Co.,  and  which  is  now  in 
course  of  distribution  to  the  various  offices. 

NATH.  GREENE. 

Oclober  25,  1834. 

Mr.  Greene  having  again  been  called,  gave  the  following  answers: 

Question  65.  How  are  the  failures  by  contractors  in  delivering  the  mails 
according  to  the  contracts  noted  by  you  or  at  your  office,  and  the  department 
notified  thereof,  so  as  to  enable  them  to  enforce  the  penalties. 

Answer  65.  We  keep  a  book  in  which  are  inserted  the  hour  and  minute 
of  the  arrival  and  departure  of  the  great  eastern  and  southern  mails;  a  tran- 
script from  that  book  is  made  every  Saturday,  and  forwarded  to  the  depart- 
ment. The  other  and  minor  mails  have  so  generally  arrived  regularly 
within  their  time,  that  the  same  proceeding  v/ith  regard  to  them  lias  not  been 
deemed  necessary.  Whenever  a  failure  takes  place  of  sufficient  importance 
to  require  notice,  it  is  reported  to  the  department. 

Question  6G.  How  and  to  what  extent  are  you  compensated  for  the  duties 
of  your  office  as  postmaster? 

Answer  66.  I  am  allowed  by  law  a  commission  which  is  limited  to 
$3,000  per  annum,  and  1  cannot  receive  more.  The  per  centage  allowed 
is  specified  in  the  law.  I  deduct  the  expenses  of  the  office,  such  as  clerk 
hire,  fuel,  &c.,  before  I  pay  over  the  balance  of  commissions.  These  items 
are  all  specified  in  m)''  account  sent  annually  to  the  department.  Certain 
contingent  expenses  of  the  office,  such  as  sealing  wax,  advertising  letters, 
&c.,  are  paid  out  of  the  gross  amount  of  postages  received,  and  the  returns 
of  these  accounts  are  made  quarterly.  The  items  of  rent,  clerk  hire,  &c. 
are  taken  out  of  the  commissions  allowed  by  law.  A  portion  of  the  letters 
received  are,  when  requested,  delivered  by  a  penny  post;  the  postmaster  at 
this  place  receives  nothing  from  this  service  by  the  penny  post;  his  com- 
pensation as  penny  post  is  fixed  by  law. 

Question  67.  How  many  private  letter  boxes  are  there  in  your  office, 
and  what  compensation  do  you  receive  for  them? 

Answer  67.  I  keep  accounts  with  about  1,200  persons,  whose  letters  are 
put  into  separate  boxes.  I  give  them  a  credit  on  their  postage,  myself  ad- 
vancing the  money  to  the  department,  and  charging  them  each  tvvo  dollars 
a  year  for  that  accommodation.  We  send  our  bills  round  quarterly,  but 
they  are  not  alwa3^s  punctually  paid.  The  deposites  are  made  weekly,  more 
or  less.  The  practice  of  having  private  boxes  has  existed  to  knowledge  of 
witness  for  fourteen  years,  and,  as  he  has  understood,  for  many  years  before, 
and  the  compensation  the  same  as  charged  by  him.  There  is  one  other 
source  oi  profit,  that  is,  on  letters  deposited  in  the  office  for  persons  whose 
letters  are  taken  out  or  delivered  from  the  same  office,  one  cent  is  allowed 
by  law  for  each  letter.  I  cannot  tell  what  it  amounts  to  per  annum;  it  is 
not  a  large  sum. 

NATH.  GREENE. 


[86  ] 


s       184 

[Doc.  No.  35.] 

October  25,  1834. 

CHARLES    G.   GREENE. 


Quesiion  1.  When  did  you  become  a  partner  of  the  firm  of  True  and 
Greene? 

Answer  1.  In  May,  1S29. 

Question  2,   What  interest  did  you  take  in  the  firm? 

Answers.   The  interest  formerly  of  my  brother,  Nathaniel  Greene. 

Quesiion  3.      Did  he  retain  any  interest,  direction,  or  control  in  the  firm? 

Answer  3.  None  at  all. 

Quesiion  4.  Were  you  compensated  after  you  entered  the  firm  by  an  an- 
nual salary,  or  by  the  profits  of  the  concern,  for  your  services? 

Answer  4.   By  what  arose  from  the  concern,  and  not  by  an  annual  salary. 

Question  5.  Was  the  contract  with  the  Post  Office  Department  a  part  of 
the  whole  concern  of  the  firm,  and  transferred  as  part  of  it  with  the  trans- 
ferred interest  of  Nathaniel  Greene? 

Answer  5.  It  was;  and  there  was  no  separate  agreement  respecting  that 
contract. 

Question  6.  How  long  have  you  been  sole  contractor  with  the  depart- 
ment? 

Answer  6.  From  February  last.  At  that  time  Mr.  True  withdrew  from 
the  firm,  and  left  that  busijiess  in  my  hands,  and  I  have  attended  to  it  with- 
out any  new  contract.  I  sent  a  certificate  from  Mr.  True  to  the  department, 
showing  that  he  had  withdrawn,  and  I  had  all  that  business  in  my  hands. 

CHARLES  G.  GREENE. 


[Doc.  No.  36.] 

October  25,  1S34 

JOHN  B.   DERBY. 

Question  1.  Do  you  know  of  the  existence  of  the  firm  of  True  and  Greene 
in  Boston? 

Answer  1.  Yes,  I  do.  The  members  of  the  firm,  as  I  supposed,  were  Ben- 
jamin True  and  Nathaniel  Greene.  I  was  informed  by  Charles  G.  Greene, 
some  short  time  prior  to  1st  March,  1S31,  that  he  had  no  interest  in  the  firm 
of  True  and  Greene,  but  that  he  received  one  thousand  dollars  a  year  for  his 
services  as  editor  of  the  Statesman.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  had  any  con- 
versation with  Nathaniel  Greene  for  about  two  years,  the  intercourse  with 
the  Statesman  party  having  ceased,  I  having  proposed  to  insert  an  article  re- 
viewing the  correspondence  of  the  President  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  defence  of 
the  President,  which  was  refused,  and  was  afterwards  inserted  in  the  Globe 
at  Washington. 

Question  2.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  Nathaniel  Greene  on  the 
subject  of  any  interest  in  the  concerns  of  True  and  Greene  since  IS2S? 

Answer  2.  I  liave  no  recollection  of  any.  The  firm  of  True  and  Greene 
was  Benjamin  True  and  Nathaniel  Greene,  and  I  never  knew  or  heard  of 
any  change.  Xt  the  lime  when  C.  G.  Greene  informed  me  he  had  no  in- 
terest in  the  firm,  he  informed  me  that  his  brother  Nat  was  the  person  inte- 
rested in  and  composing  part  of  the  firm  of  True  and  Greene. 


185  [86.1 

Question  3.  Have  not  you  and  both  the  Mr.  Greenes  been  at  variance  for 
some  time  past? 

Answer  3.  There  has  been  a  political  but  never  a  personal  difference.  We 
all  belonged  to  the  Jackson  party.  There  arose  a  difference  between  as, 
they  took  one  side,  and  I  took  the  other;  and  the  section  of  the  party  to 
which  I  was  attached  set  up  a  new  paper,  called  the  Globe.  '  "       • 

JOtlN  B.  DERBY. 


[Doc.  No.  S^r.] 

Boston,  October  25^  1834. 

And  Emmerson  having  appeared  before  the  committee,  and  being  duly 
sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective  interrogatories  as  fol- 
low, to  wit: 

Question  1.  How  long  have  you  been  owner  or  interested  in  a  paper- 
mill  at  Peppcrell,  in  Massachusetts? 

Answer  1.  It  is  a  little  over  three  years  since  Mr.  Bullard  and  I  pur- 
chased it.  ?•  • 

Question  2.  Have  you  been-in  the  habit  of  supplying  contractors  with 
the  Post  Office  Department  at  Boston  with  wrapping  paper? 

Answer  2.   I  have.  , 

Question  3.  At  what  prices  have  you  furnished  the  contractors  with  ihe 
paper,  and  at  whaf  place  have  you  delivered  it? 

Answer  3.  The  wrapping  paper  at  three  dollars  and  a  half  per  ream,  de- 
livered at  C.  G.  Greene's  place,  21  Water  Street,  Boston. 

Question  4.  When  did  Nathaniel  Greene  become  interested  inthat  mill, 
and  when  did  he  part  with  his  interest,  and  on  what  terms? 

Answer  4.  On  6th  July,  1833,  he  became  interested  one  half;  he  parted 
with  his  interest  on  the  1st  day  of  this  month.  He  sold  to  Mr.  Parker,  of 
Lowell;  he  had  paid  on  his  purchase  ^3,000,  and  sold  out  losing  that  amount. 

Question  5.  What  were  the  prices  at  which  you  sold  the  wrapping  paper 
during  the  time  Nathaniel  Greene  Avas  interested  in  said  mill? 

Answer  5.  Three  dollars  and  one  half  per  ream. 

Question  6.  Was  the  qualitj^-  of  the  wrapping  paper  furnished  to  the  con- 
tractor as  good  or  better,  while  he  was  interested,  as  tlie  paper  whrcii  had 
been  furnished  to  the  contractor  or  contractors  befoje  that  lime,  from  that 
mill? 

Answer  6.  It  was  better. 

Question  7.  Has  any  wrapping,  paper  furnished  from  your  mill  at  any- 
time been  returned  or  refused  by  the  contractor?  If  so,  state  when^,  and  the 
reason  why. 

Ans\ver  7.  Yes,  it  has.  There  was  one  lot  in  the  fall,  late,  of  1833,  or 
forepart  of  the  winter,  that  considerable  fault  was  fotind  with,  and  about 
seventy  reams  were  returned,  being  the  whole  lot;  I  think  but  a  i^w  reams 
could  have  been  used,  two  or  three.  There  were  one  or  two  other  lots 
objected  to.  Mr.  C.  G.  Greene  used  a  few  reams  of  them ;  but  not  used 
for  the  post  office,  as  I  believe. 
24 


[  S6  3  186 

Lowell,  October  21,  1S34. 

JVIr.  Emnierson  continued: 

I  Ii£ve  not  been  able  to  find  a  snmple  of  the  paper  furnished  by  us  while 
Nathaniel  Greene  was  a  pertner.  Here  is  a  sample,  marked  siateeji^  which 
has  been  furnished  recently  to  C.  G.  Greene,  and  1  consider  it  belter  than 
(hat  furnished,  eay  two  year.s  ago,  and  was  made  in  consequence  of  com- 
plaints having  been  matic.  The  quality  of  the  pa]3er  geneially  furnished 
while  Nathaniel  Greene  was  a  partner  v.'as  quite  as  good,  so  far  as  they 
were  accepted  by  the  contractor. 

Nathaniel  Greene  and  C.  G.  Greene  were  at  all  times  rigid  and  exact  in 
the  quality  of  the  paper  feccepted  for  the  supply  for  the  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment. 

We  furnished,  as  appears  by  our  journal,  to  the  contractor  from  our  mill 
52a  reams;  84  out  of  this^were  rejected  and  returned  to  us  by  the  con- 
tractor. This  was  between  July,  1833,  and  October,  1834.  Neither  of 
the  iMesfrs.  Greene  have  now  any  interest  in  the  mill. 

AND  EMERSON. 


[Doe,  3S — See  ^jjpendix.'\ 


[Doc.  No.  39.] 

Providence,  October  17,  1834. 

K.  L  MalItU,  of  Providence,  in  the  county  of  Providence  and^State  of 
Hhode  Island,  on  oath,  certifies  and  sa)'s  that  he  is  now  the  postmaster  at 
Providence,  and  has  been  ever  since  the  first  day  of  August,  1831. 

Question.  If  you  can,  you  will  furnish  the  committee  with  samples  of 
the  different  supplies  of  wrapping  paper  used  by  you  since  in  office,  and 
state  when  and  by  whom  they  were  respectively  furnished. 

Answer.  I  think  I  can.  I  find  some  of  my  books  and  accounts  covered 
wi(h  paper  No.  1,  and  as  I  used  the  ofiice  wrapping  paper  for  covers  and  en- 
velopes to  iny  duplicates  of  accounts,  I  am  very  sure  this  kind  of  paper  \Yas 
used  when  1  came  into  office.  The  mail  clerk  complained  that  it  was  not 
jiood,  and  that  it  was  furnished  by  Messrs.  Parker  &  Co.,  contractors,  at 
Boston.  When  the  supply  was  exhausted,  1  wrote  Messrs.  Parker  &  Co. 
for  more,  and  sent  a  sample  of  the  kind  I  wished.  They  sent  me  some  which 
did  not  suit  me;  it  is  marked  No.  2,  if  my  memory  serves  me,  and  I  find  it 
sround  some  of  my  duplicates.  Not  being  satisfied  with  Messrs.  Parker  & 
Co.'s  paper,  I  wrote  them  I  would  return  it,  and  1  applied  at  the  New  York 
office  and  obtained  seven  reams  from  there  marked  No.  3.  About  the  time 
this  arrived  I  received  from  Messrs.  Parker  &  Co.  a  suppl}^  which  was  good 
enough,  and  these  two  supplies  I  think  carried  me  up  to  the  new  contractors, 
Messrs.  True  &  Greene,  of  Boston.  Messrs.  Parker  &  Co.  wrote  me  not  to 
send  back  'the  first  paper  they  sent  me,  as  they  could  probably  save  the  ex- 
pense of  re-transportation  by  supplying  the  smaller  offices.  This  was  in  the 
latter  part  of  1831.  I  think  the  first  I  received  from  True  &  Greene  is 
marked  No.  5.  I  am  of  this  opinion  because  I  find  it  endorsed  in  the  hand- 
writing of  my  bookkeeper  around  my  duplicates,  bearing  date  September, 
1833,  at  which  time  I  believe  True  &  Greene  were  contractors.     The  last 


187  [86] 

received  from  True  &  Greene  is  inarL'cd  No.  6;  this  arrived  about  a  month 
ago;  it  is  broader  than  the  other,  but  not  quite  so  long,  and  is  of  good  qua- 
lity. It  is  possible  a  supply  may  have  arrived  between  No.  5  and  No.  6. 
if  it  is  so,  1  have  no  sample  of  it. 

Question.     Is  the  paper  now  exhibited  to  you,  and  marked  No.  7,  the 
same  paper  used  by  you  in  your  office  at  any  lirne  wiihin  the  past  year? 

Answer.  As  1  do  not  make  up  the  mails  myself  I  cannot  say.  The 
color  of  the  paper  resembles  what  we  have  used  for  the  year  past,  and  what 
we  are  now  using.  The  quality  is  not  so  good  as  that  marked  No.  5  and  6. 
Question.  Are  No.  7  and  No.  8,  now  exhibited  to  you,  the  same  paper? 
Answer.  I  am  of  opinion  the  quality  is  the  same,  but  No.  7  appears  to 
have  been  cut  or  trimmed,  so  as  to  be  a  little  smaller  than  No.  8  cr  No.  5 
and  6. 

Question.     Have  you  any  other  reason  that  the  paper  marked  No.  5 
was  received  from  True  and  Greene  than  the  one  you  have  slated? 
Answer.     I  have  no  other  data  to  guide  me. 

Question.  Have  you  any  other  reason  for  supposing  that  No.  2  and  4 
were  received  from  Parker  and  Co.  than  that  which  you  have  stated? 

Answer.  None,  except  that  1  find  No.  2  is  very  thin,  and  it  appears  by 
my  letter  book  at  that  time  that  I  was  dissatisfied  with  what  Parker  and  Co. 
had  sent  me.  It  appears  also  by  the  letter  book  that  they  also  sent  me  some 
which  did  suit  me,  and  is  that,  I  think,  which  is  marked  No.  4. 
Question.  Is  j'our  office  a  depositing  and  distributing  office? 
Answer.  I  dcposite  the  proceeds  of  my  office  monthly,  to  the  credit  of  the 
department,  in  the  Arcade  Hank.     It  is  a  distributing  office. 

Question.  How  long  since  you  made  your  deposiles  in  the  Arcade  Bank, 
and  in  what  bank  did  you  make  them  previously? 

Answer.  I  think  not  quite  a  year  since  the  change.  They  were  pre- 
viously made  in  the  branch  of  the  United  States  Bank  in  this  city. 

Question.  How  often  are  the  contingent  and  incidental  expenses  of  your 
office  stated  and  rendered  to  the  department,  and  what  items  do  those 
accounts  contain? 

Answer.  I  make  a  quarterly  return  to  the  department,  the  contingent 
account  of  which  last  quarter  embraced  but  two  items,  one  to  the  mail  car- 
rier between  my  office  and  the  steamboats,  the  other  for  advertising  letters. 
I  also  make  an  annual  statement  on  the  30th  September,  of  each  year,  the 
incidental  charges  of  .which  are  rent,  fuel,  lights,  clerk  hire,  stationery, 
printing,  &.c.  1  keep  duplicates,  and  the  originals  were  sent  to  the  depart- 
ment. 

.E.  J.  MALLETT. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  the  Post  Office  Committee,  at  Providence, 
17th  October,  1831.  FELIX  GRUNDY,  Chairman. 


[Doc.  No.  40.] 

Robert  H.  Barton,  of  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  a  witness  sworn  and  ex- 
amined before  the  Committee  on  Post  Office,  &c.,  deposeth  and  saith: 

lam  the  mail  clerk  in  the  post  office  in  this  place,  and  have  been  so  since 
the  8th  July  last  past,  and  had  been  a  clerk  in  said  office  for  one  year  previous 
to  that  time.     The  samples  of  paper  No.  7  and  No.  6  being  shown  to  hinj, 


[  8G  ]  188 

he  says:  No.  7  is  the  kind  of  paper  used  in  tiie  office  wher»  I  commenced  tO' 
mail  letters,  and  we  continued  to  use  it  until  we  received  No.  6,  which  was 
about  one  month  since.  Similar  paper  to  No.  7,  if  not  the  same,  was  used 
before  I  became  mail  clerk,  as  I  believe.  I  believe  it  to  be  so  because  I 
often  saw  and  handled  the  paper,  but  as  the  mail  clerk  only  uses  the  paper, 
and  I  was  pftt  mail  clerk  previous  to  July,  1834,  I  cannot  be  positive  on  this 
point,  any  further  than  my  belief,  arising  from  seeing  and  handling  it  as  be- 
fore stated. 

ROBERT  H.  BARTON. 
Sworn  and  subscribed  before  the  committee  at  Providence,  on  17th  Oc- 
tober, 1834. 

FELIX  GRUNDY,  Chairman. 


[Doc.  No.  41.] 

Martin  Robinson,  of  Providence,  in  the  county  of  Providence  and  State 
of  Rhode  Island,  on  oath  testifies  and  says:  That  he  is  a  dealer  in  paper  and 
stationery  in  the  city  of  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  and  has  been  so  for  ten 
years  past;  has  dealt  largely,  and  been  agent  of  D.  and  J.  Ames  for  this 
State  since  1826. 

Being  interrogated,  he  answers  and  says:  Has  examined  the  samples  of 
paper  furnished  to  the  committee  from  No.  1  to  No.  8  inclusive;  a  fair  price 
upon  the  usual  credit  of  six  months,  at  the  place  Of  delivery,  at  the  expense 
of  the  makers,  would  be  as  follows: 

No.  1,  estimated  as  of  the  size  of  No.  5,  a  whole  sheet  to  measure  about 
20i  by  26  inches,  is  worth,  at  a  wholesale  price,  three  dollars  per  ream. 

No.  2,  estimated  in  same  v\^ay,  three  dollars  tnd  fifty  cents. 

No.  3,  estimated  in  same  way,  four  dollars  tnd  fifty  cents. 

No.  4,  three  dollars  and  seventy-five  Cents.  * 

No.  5,  four  dollars. 
^  No.  6,  four  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

No.  7,  three  doUiars. 

No.  S,  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

These  estimates  are  founded  upon  the  delivery  being  made  at  New  York>. 
Providence,  or  Boston. 

M.  ROBINSON. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  the  committee  At  Providence,  Rhode  Island,,, 
on  the  17th  October,  1834. 

FELIX  GRUNDY,  Chairman, 


[Doc.  No.  42] 

John  E.  Brown,  of  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  a  witness  produced,  sworn 
and  examined  before  the  Committee  on  the  Post  Office,  &c.,  on  his  oath 
says,  viz. : 

I  am,  and  for  about  five  ,  years  last  past  have  been  a  considerable  dealer 
in  paper,  stationery,  &c. 

And  the  witness  having  inspected  the  samples  of  paper  from  No.  1  to 
No.  8  inclusive,  the  following  question  was  proposed  to  him: 

Question.     What  would  be  a  fair  wholesale  price  for  paper,  by  the  reani;, 


189  C  86  ] 

according;  to  thq  samples,  the  paper  to  be  delivered  in  Boston,  Providence^ 
or  New  York? 

Answer.  No.  1,  two  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents;  No.  2,  three  dollars^ 
No.  3,  four  dollars;  No.  4,  three  dollars  and  twenty  five  cents;  No.  5, 
three  dollars  and  fifty  cents;  No.  6,  four  dollars;  No.  7,  three  dollars  and 
twenty-five  cents;  No.  8,  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

JOHN  E.  BROWN. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  the  committee,  at  Providence,  17th  Octo- 
ber,  1834. 

FELIX  GRUNDY,  Chairman. 


[Doc.  No.  43.] 

Thomas  J.  Branch, 'of  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  a  witness  produced, 
sworn,  and  examined  before  the  confmittee,  &c.,  on  his  oath  says: 

I  am  a  dealer  in  paper,  stationery,  and  books,  and  have  been  such  for 
■eight  years  last  past.  , 

The  samples  of  paper,  from  No.  1  to  No.  8  inclusive,  having  been  in- 
spected by  nlm.  the  following  question  was  proposed  to  him,  to  wit: 

Question.  What  would  be  a  fair  wholesale  price  for  paper,  by  the  ream, 
according  to  the  samples;,  the  paper  to  be  delivered  in  Boston,  Providence, 
or  New  York? 

Answer.  No.  1,  two  dollars;  No.  2,  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents;  No  3, 
three  dollars;  No.  4,  two  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents:  No.  5,  three  dol- 
lars; No.  6,  three  dollars;  No.  7,  two"  dollars  and  fifty  cents;  No.  6,  two 
dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

THOS.  JEFFERSON  BRANCH. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  the  committee,  at  Providence,  17th  Octo- 
ber, 1834.  • 

FELIX  GRUNDY,  Chairman. 


[Doc.  No.  44.] 

Boston,  Oc/.  24,  1834. 

William  Parker  having  appeared  before  (he  committee,  and  being  first 
duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective  interrogatories,  as 
hereinafter  set  forth. 

Question  I.  Have  you  been  in  the  practice  of  furnishing  wrapping  paper 
and  twine  to  the  difi'erent  contractors  with  the  post  office  department  at 
Boston;  and  if  so,  to  what  contractors,  and  at  what  times? 

Answer  1.  I  have  furnished  twine  and  wrapping  paper  to  them.  The 
first  was  to  Thomas  Rovve,  to  True  and  Greene,  Simeon  Ide,  True  and 
Greene  again,  and  since  to  Charles  G.  Greene. 

Question  2.  What  was  the  quality  and  difference  in  quality  of  the  t'.v:ne 
furnished  to  the  different  contractors? 

Answer  2.  Mr.  Rowe  and  True  and  Greene  furnished  good  twine, 
manufactured  by  Mr.  Edwards.  Mr.  Ide  furnished  Russia  twine  at  first; 
it  did  not  answer;  then  hemp  tow  twine,  of  a  quality  not  so  good  as  True 
and  Greene's,  costing  about  half  the  price  of  Mr.  Edwards'  twine;  it  wa^ 


I  S6  J  190 

tomplained  of,  and  several  times  was  returned.  I  then,  by  direction  of 
Mr:  Ide,  purchased  of  a  better  quality,  and  got  it  afterwards  from  Mr 
Edwards.  I  had  to  get  this  good  twine  for  the  offices  at  Boston,  Portland, 
Providence,  and  other  places  where  they  complained;  but  the  general  sup- 
ply was  of  this  inferior  kind.  The  inferior  cost  about  18  to  20  cents  per 
pound;  Edwards'  twine  cost  about  Sli  cents  per  pound.  I  did  not  get  the 
twine  for  True  and  Greene,  or  C.  G.  Greene,  and  therefore  cannot  speak  o£ 
its  quality. 

Question  3.  What  was  the  quality  and  the  difierenco  in  quality  of  the 
wrapping  paper  furnished  to  the  different  contractors? 

Answer  3.  There  was  good  paper  furnished  by  me  to  Mr.  Rowe,  cost- 
ing Kowe  four  dollars  per  ream.  When'Rowe  went  away  I  furnished  True 
and  Greene;  they  were  pretty  particular,  and  I  furnished  them  with  good 
paper,  and  I  think  the  price  then  was  four  dollars. 

I  furnished  Ide  also,  according  to  sample  furnished  me  by  him, at  three  dol- 
lars and  a  half;  it  was  not  as  good  as  that  furnished  to  Rowe  and  True  and 
Greene.  During  this  time  I  had  to  get  better  paper  for  Boston  and  other 
places,  the  same  as  the  twine. 

After  the  expiration  of  Ide's  contract,  I  furnished  True  and  Greene  agaia 
occasionally  with  paper  of  a  better  quality  they  refusing  to  take  what  was  left 
of  the  supply  for  Ide,  requiring  from  me  a  better  quality. 

I  furnished  also  some  to  C.  Gr.  Greene  of  the  same  quality  as  that  furnish- 
ed to  True  and  Greene.  The  price  for  these  better  lots  was  three  dollars  and 
a  half,  except  the  last  sold,  to  C.  G.  Greene,  within  this  month  I  think, 
which  I  sold  to  him  at  three  dollars;  being  very  desirous  to  get  rid  of  it  I 
sold  it  at  a  loss,  as  it  cost  me  three  dollars  twenty-five  cents.  All  the 
paper  except  this  last  cost  True  and  Greene  and  C.  G.  Greene  three  dollars 
and  fifty  cents. 

,    Question  4.     Is  the  Russian  twine,  or  that  manufactured  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Boston,  best  adapted  to  the  use  of  the  post  office? 

Answer  4.  The  twine  manufactured  here  is  i?est,  because  it  is  stronger 
and  more  pliable.     The  Russian  is  not  suitable  to  be  used  in  the  post  office. 

Question  5.  Is  not  paper  reduced  in  price,  now,  compared  with  its  cost 
some  years  ago? 

Answer  5.     Yes,  I  should  think  nearly  twenty-five  per  cent. 

The  paper  here  produced  and  marked  No.  thirteen,  is  a  sample  of  the- 
paper  generally  furnished  by  Mr.  Ide  to  the  post  office  through  me. 

I  have  examined  the  samples  exhibited  to  me  from  one  to  eight.  Nos.  3, 
5,  and  6,  1  would  consider  worth,  at  a  Aiir  average  wholesale  price,  three 
dollars  and  a  half  per  ream;  No.  seven.,  three  dollars,   because  it  is  smaller 


and  lighter. 


WILLIAM  PARKER. 


[Doc.  No.  45.] 

October  25,  1S54. 

ilOSES    GRANT. 

Question  I.   How  lon^;  have  you  been  an  extensive  dealer  in  paper? 

Answer  1.  Over  twenty  years.  I  iiavc  been  one  of  the  largest  dealers  in 
this  place.  I  have  never  been  in  any  shjpe  connected  with  furnishing  sup- 
plies to  the  Post  Office  Department. 

Question  2.   Be  pleased  lo'ex-mine  the  samples  shown  you  numbered  from 


191  [  86  3 

one  to  fourteen,  of  wrapping  paper,  and  state  what  is  the  fair  wholesale  rr.ar- 
ket  price  of  such  samples,  and  for  what  it  could  be  furnished  on  a  large  con- 
tract. 

No.  1,  if  of  the  size  of  No.  S,  which  is  a  half  sheet,  would^  be  worth 
$1  25  to  $1   50  per  ream;  if  of  the  size  of  No.  6,  worth  25  cents  more. 

No.  2,  of  same  sizes,  might  be  worth  50  cents  more  than  No.  1. 

No.  3,  of  its  apparent  size,  would  be  worth  S2  50  per  ream. 

No.  4,  of  the  size  of  No.  3,  about  the  «ame  as  No.  3. 

No.  5,  not  much  difference  from  Nos.  3  and  4. 

No.  G  would  be  worth  3  dollars  per  ream 

No.  7,  of  same  size  as  No.  6,  worth  S2  25  per  ream;  if  of  its  present 
size,  25  cents  less. 

No.  S,  worth  two, dollars  and  fift}-  cents. 

'No.  9,  about  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

No.  10,  two  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents. 

No.  11,  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

No.  13,  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 
,    No.  14,  two  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents. 

No.  15,  two  dollars  and  seventy-five  cents  or  three  dollars. 

These  estimates  are  at  the  present  lowest  wholesale  prices  delivereiii  in  this 
city;  deliverable  in  Providence  or  New  York,  tb.e  expense  would  not  be 
greater  than  six  cents  the  ream.  In  this  kind  of  wrapping  paper  there  is  a 
difiference  between  the  prices  now  and  five  years  ago  of  twenty-five  to  thir- 
ty-three and  one  third  per  cent,  less;  and  between  this  lime  and  ten  years 
ago,  paper  which  could  be  bought  now  for  three  dollars  would  have  cost 
rather  over  four  dollars  then. 

MOSES  GRANT. 


[Doc.  No.  46.] 

Boston,  October  24,  1S34. 

CALVIN  YOUNG. 

Question  1.  What  opportunities  have  you  had  of  knowing  the  different 
kinds  and  qualities  of  wrapping  paper  and  twii*e  furnished  by  the  different 
contractors  at  Boston  to  the  Post  Office  Department? 

Answer  1.  I  have  used  them  constantly  for  ten  years  past  in  the  post  office 
at  Boston. 

Question  2.  State  the  different  kinds  of  paper  and  twine  furnished  at 
different  times,  and  by  whom  since  you  have  been  employed  in  the  post 
office. 

Answer.  2.  When  I  was  first  employed  in  the  post  office,  Mr.  Rowe 
furnished  paper  and  twine.  The  quality  was  good.  Al'tcr  him,  True  and 
Greene  furnished;  the  quality  they  furnished  was  equal  to  Mr.  Rowe's. 

The  next  was  Mr.  Ide,  of  Vermont.  The  articles  which  he  furnished 
were  not  equal  to  those  furnislied  by  True  and  Greene  or  Rowe,  nor  were 
they  equal  lo  the  samples  furnished  him. 

Then  came  True  and  Greene  again.  The  articles  furnished  by  them  then 
were  superior  to  any  we  had  previously  received. 

'  C.  G.  Greene  was  the  next.  The  articles  furnished  by  him  were  enual 
to  those  of  True  and  Greene,  and  continue  to  be  so  furnished  up  toihia 
present  time. 


[  S6  ]  192 

Question  3.  Was  the  difference  between  the  paper  furnished  by  True  and 
Greene  and  Charles  G.  Greene  and  that  furnished  by  Ide-  very  plain  and 
manifest? 

Answer  3.  Very  much  so.  I  think  the  difference  in  value  would  be 
twenty  per  cent. 

CALVIN  YOUNG. 


,    [Doc.  No.  47.] 

BosTONj  October f  24,  1834. 

Sanmuel  P.  Haywood  having  appeared  before  the  committee,  and  being 
duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective  interrogatories. 

Question  1.  Kav^  you  furnished  wrapping  paper  to  any  of  the  contract- 
ors with  the  Post  Office  Department? 

Answer  I.  1  have;  to  True  and  Greene  and  Horatio  Hill  &  Co.,  of 
Concord. 

Question  2.  Of  what  quality  was  the  paper  furnished  by  you  to  them, 
and  at  what  prices,  and  when? 

Answer  2.  We  have  been  in  the  habit  of  selling  to  True  and  Greene^  from 
1S30,  at  different  times  up  till  about  a  year  ago,  I  think. 

We  sold  to  Horatio  Hil!  &  Co.  several  times  within  a  year  a::d  a  ha!f^ 
the  last  lot  is  not  all  delivered  yet. 

To  True  and  Greene  we  sold  usually  at  four  dollars  the  ream;  the  last  lot; 
as  appears  from  our  books,  was  at  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

I  think  we  never  charged  Hill  and  Barton  more  than  three  dollars  and 
fifty  '"  .its,  and  the  last  sold  to  them  was  at  three  dollars  and  twelve  and  a 
half  c:.' lis,  a  sample  of  which  is  here  produced,  marked  number  fourteen, 
and  is  rather  of  an  inferior  quality  to  any  sold  by  us  to  contractors;  the 
difference  in  quality  i.s  net  so  great  as  in  price. 

P&per  which  sold  three  or  four  5'eaKS  ago  at  four  dollars  would  now  pro- 
bably not  bring  more  than  three  dollars  and  fifty  cents. 

The  first  sale  to  Horatio  Hill  &  Co.  was  dated 
25th  March,  1833,  forty-fo'ir. reams  at  g3  50    -  -  -     ^154  00 

3d   May,  1834,  four  reams  at  ^3  -  -  -  -  12  00 

S61h  June,  1834,  one  hundred  and  fifty-five  reams  at  ^3  125      -       484  37 

We  have  sold  none  to  True  and  Greene  since  October,  1833,  and  none  at' 
any  time  to  C.  G.  "Greene. 

S.  P.  HAYWOOD. 


[  Doc.  No.  48.  ] 

Boston,  October  24,  1834. 

Charles  S.  Newell  having  appeared  and  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  foU 
lowing  answers  to  the  respective  interrogatories,  as  hereinafter  set  forth, 
^0  wit: 

Question  1.  Are  you  the  clerk  employed  by  the  contractor  at  Boston  to 
put  up  the  paper  arid  twine  provided  for  the  Post  Office  Department;  and 
if  so,  how  long  have  you  acted  as  such? 


193  [  86  ] 

Answer  1.  I  am  clerk  of  C.  G.  Greene,  now  Beals  and  Greene,  and  have 
been  so  since  January  last. 

Question  2.  Have  the  wrapping  paper  and  twine  furnished  by  the  con- 
tractor for  the  use  of  the  Post  OIFice  Department  been  equal  to  the  samples 
furnished  by  the  department? 

Answer  2.  The  wrapping  paper,  all  except  about  eighty -four  reams,  fur- 
nished by  Emmerson  and  Greene  was  equal  to  the  samples;  that  was  defi- 
cient in  sizing.  It  was  in  some  instances  better,  and  never  worse,  except  as 
stated.     The  ivvine  has  always  been  good,  and   no  complaint  made  about  it. 

Part  of  the  eighty-four  reams  was  used  before  the  defect  was  ascertained, 
the  rest  was  returned  to  the  contractor. 

Question  3.  Would  you  know  the  paper  which  has  been  distributed  if 
shown  to  you?  , 

Answer  3.  I  do  not  know  that  I  would.  I  do  not  think  I  could  tell  in  all 
•cases.  ' 

•  Witness  having  been  shown  the  samples  numbered  from  one  to  eight, 
selected  No.  six  as  that  which  had  been  furnished  while  he  has  been  clerk. 
There  was  a  parcel  of  it  on  hand  when  he  went  into  the  employment  of 
C.  G.  Greene. 

I  cannot  ^ay  at  what  time  I  sent  paper  of  that  quality  to  Providence,  but 
may  have  been  as  early  as  May  last.  No.  seven  being  shown  to  witness, 
he  states  he  has  no  knowledge  of  such  paper. 

CHAS.  S.  NEWELL. 

Witness  having  relurned  before  the  committee,  produced  the  following 
statemeat  of  paper  furnished  to  the  Post  Office  at  Providence,  to  wit:  29th 
January,  1834,  six  reams;  14th  June,  1S34,  five  reams;  30th  August,  1834, 
six  reams:  and  it  was  of  the  same  quality  as  sample  No.  «  x.  I  do  not 
think  it  was  of  the  same  size.  This  opinion  I  have  formed  fro.n  the  a^pear- 
_ance  of  the  paper. 

CHAS.  S.  NEWELL. 


1^— 

[Doc.  No.  49.  ] 
'  October  25,  1834. 

BENJAMr.V    TRUE. 

Question  1.   Are  you  of  the  firm  of  True  and  Greene  who  were  contrac- 
tors to  furnish  the  Post  Office  Department  with  blanks,  paper,  and  twine? 

Answer  1.  Yes,  I  was. 

Question  2.   How  long  were  >*- J  a  partner? 

Answer  2.   Nearly  ten  years. 

Question  3,   When  did  you  cease  to  be  a  member  of  the  firm? 

Answer  3.   On  the  1st  of  February  last. 

Question  4.   When  did  Nathaniel  Greene  cease  to  be  a  partner? 

Answer  4.   I  cannot  state  precisely;  it  was  advertised,  and  was  at  the 
time  he  took  the  post  office. 

Question  5.  Did  Nathaniel  Greene  then  cease  to  have  any  interest  in  tho 
■eoncern  and  the  contract  with  the  department? 

Answer  5.  Yes. 
25 


[  86  ]  194 

Question  6.  Has  he  not,  to  your  knowledge,  since  that  time'  had  any 
interest  in  it? 

Answer  6.   No;  no  other  than  a  friend. 

Question  7.  Had  he  any  interest  in  the  success  or  failure  of  the  concern, 
or  money  depending  on  it? 

Answer  7.  No. 

Question  S.  Was  the  newspaper  ^called  the  Statesman  or  Post  a  part  of 
the  property  of  the  concern? 

Answer  S.  The  Statesman  was,  while  Mr.  Nathaniel  Greene  was  with 
iTie.  The  Post,  I  think,  was  established  after  C.  G.  Greene  came  into  the 
firm. 

Question  9.  What  interest  had  Charles  G.  Greene  in  the  firm  when  he 
came  into  the  firm,  and  while  in  it? 

Answer  9.  He  took  his  brother's  interest  in  the  concern,  which  was  one- 
lialf. 

Question  10.  Did  Charles  G.  Greene  come  into  the  firm  as  a  substitute 
for  his  brother  with  regard  to  the  debts,  &c.,  or  did  he  purchase  his  brother's 
interest  in  it;  and  did  he  pay  a  consideration  therefor,  and  what? 

Ans>ver  10.  He  took  his  brother's  place.  The  office  was  in  debt.  I 
never  saw  any  contract  between  Nathaniel  Greene  and  C.  G.  Greene,  any 
other  than  his  coming  into  the  concern  and  taking  debts  and  credits  as  they 
belonged  to  his  brother.  I  know  of  no  other  consideration  than  his  paying 
debts.  The  office  was  in  debt,  and  he  agreed  to  pay  a  certain  proportion 
of  it;  and  Nathaniel  Greene  took  a  part  of  the  debts  to  pay. 

Question  11.  Was  this  contract  with  the  Government,  and  the  office  of 
the  Statesman,  and  the  other  business,  considered  as  forming,  altogether, 
one  concern? 

Answer  11.  Yes. 

BENJA.  TRUR 


[  Doc.  No.  50.  ] 
»  Boston,  October  25,  1834. 

THOMAS   H.    GRENVILLE. 

Question  1.  Hav.e  you  been  connected  in  any  way  with  the  post  office, 
or  in  the  employment  of  True  and  Greene? 

Answer  1.  Yes.  I  have  been  in  the  employment  of  True  and  Greene 
a  considerable  part  of  the  time  from  1S21  or  1822  until  1830,  in  their 
printing  office.  1  was  a  clerk  in  the  post  office  in  Boston  since  Nathaniel 
Greene  was  postmaster,  for  about  a  year.  I  resigned  my  situation  in  con- 
sequence of  ill  heahh. 

Question  2.     Who  composed  the  firm  of  True  and  Greene? 

Answer  2.  Benjamin  True  and  Nathaniel  Greene,  until  Nathaniel 
Greene  became  postmaster.  I  then  understood  that  Charles  G.  Greene 
became  the  partner.  There  vvas  a  notice  in  the  newspapers,  from  which  I 
supposed  that  Nathaniel  was  out  and  C.  G.  Greene  in  the  firm. 

Question  3.  Did  you  understand,  or  do  you  know  from  either  of  the 
parties,  that  0.  G,  Greene  was  a  partner  receiving  the  profits,  or  that  he 
was  allowed  a  salary  for  his  services? 

Answer  3.     1  have  no  recollection  of  any  such  fact. 

THOMAS  H.  GRENVnXEl. 


195 


[86] 


[Doc.  No.  51.  ] 

Boston,  October  24,  1834. 

John  Edwards  appeared  before  the  committee;  and  being  duly  sworn, 
gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective  interrogatories  as  hereinafter 
set  forth: 

Question  1.  Have  you  been  a  manufacturer  of  twine  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Boston  for  some  years,  and  in  the  habit  of  supplying  contractors 
with  the  Post  Office  Department  with  tliot  article?  If  so,  state  the  names  of 
the  contractors  furnished  by  you,  the  quality  of  the  twine  furnished,  and 
the  prices. 

Answer  1,  I  have  been'a  manufacturer  of  twine  in  Cambridgeport  for 
about  twenty  years.  The  first  contractor  I  furnished  was  Mr.  Rowe.  He 
had  [two  qualities;  the  first  was  .it  thirty  cents  per  pound,  of  common 
quality.  That  did  not  answer;  it  was  too  stiff.  I  then  made  him  another 
quality  at  forty  cents  per  pound,  which  answered  well. 

The  next  furnished  was  True  and  Greene,  of  same  quality  as  the  last 
furnished  to  Rowe.  Before  Rowe  ceased  to  purchase  of  me,  the  price  had 
been  reduced  to  thirty-four  cents  for  the  best  quality.  I  then  let  True  and 
Greene  have  that  same  quality  at  the  same  price  for  a  while.  It  was  then 
lowered  in  price  to  thirty  cents,  and  of  the  same  quality,  and  continued  at 
that  price  for  a  while.  I  found  I  could  not  make  it  for  that,  and  I  raised  it 
to  thirty-three  and  a  third  cents,  and  have  continued  that  price  down  to  the 
present  time.  I  furnished  it  to  True  and  Greene,  and  also  to  C.  G. 
Greene,  down  to  this  time. 

I  have  also  furnished  to  Hill  and  Barton,  of  Concord,  this  qualit}'^  at  the 
same  price,  and  also  Mr.  Ide  in  part  of  same  quality. 

Hill  and  Barton  have  had  about  S500  worth  in  all. 

True  and  Greene,  and  C.  G.  Greene,  about  $1,200  worth  a  year  while 
they  have  been  contractors,  ' 

The  twine  furnished  by  me  since  the  first  rise  in  price  is  good,  and  well 
suited  for  post  office  purposes. 

The  periods  of  the  change  in  prices  are  as  follow: 

At  34  cents  per  pound  from  August  26,   1S26,  to  February  27,  1S30. 

At  30  cents  per  pound  from  February  27,    1S30,  to  December  31,  1S31. 

At  33|  cents  per  pound  from  December  31,   1S31,  to  the  proscnt  time. 

JOHN  EDWARDS. 


[  Doc.  No.  52.  j 

October  24,  1S34. 

Nathaniel  Melcher  having  appeared,  and  being  first  duly  sworn,  made 
the  follovving  answers  to  the  respective  interrogatories,  as  follow: 

Question  1.  What  opportunities  have  you  had  of  knowing  the  different 
kinds  and  qualities  of  wr^ipping  paper  and  twine  furnished  by  the  different 
contractors  at  Boston  to  the  post  office  department? 

Ans^ver.  I  have  been  in  the  Boston  post  office  about  seven  years,  using 
the  material  furnished. 

Question  2.  State  the  different  kinds  of  paper  and  twine  furnished  at 
different  times,  and  by  whom^  since  you  have  been  employed  in  the  post 
office. 


r 


86]  196 


Answer  2.  The  first  that  I  now  recollect  was  Simeon  Ide,  of  Vermont, 
some  years  ago.  The  (quality  of  wrapping  paper  was  not  so  good  as  that 
furnished  now  by  C,  G.  Greene.  Sinee  Ide  ceased  to  furnish,  the  quality 
has  uniformly  been  good. 

Question  3.     Was  the  difference  plain  and  manifest? 

Answer  3.  Yes.  The  difference  in  value,  I  should  think,  was  from  fif- 
teen lo  twenty  per  cent.  There  was  also  a  difference  in  the  twine  and 
paper  for  blanks.     Ide's  was  not  so  good  as  that  furnished  since. 

NATHANIEL  MELCHER. 


[Doc.  No,  53.] 

Washington,  June  25,  1834. 
Sir:  In  compliance  with  the  instructions  of  the  committee,  we  proceeded 
immediately  to  the  examination  of  the  accounts  submitted  to  us;  but,  owing 
to  the  ditficulty  of  procuring  the  printed  papers,  (some  of  which,  it  is  be- 
lieved, are  lost,)  we  are  not  able  to  present  a  full  report;  we  have,  however, 
taken  the  accounts  for  advertising  proposals  for  contracts  for  the  year  1S32 
as  they  stand  charged,  and  have  ascertained  what  the  actual  cost  of  adver- 
tising the  same  quantity  of  matter  the  same  number  of  times  (that  is  to  say) 
once  a  week,  in  the  National  Intelligencer,  would  have  been,  and  submit 
the  result  to  the  Committee,  viz. ; 

The  amount  ptiid  the  Globe,       .  .  .  .  gS,386  50 

Actual  cnarg.3  lor  the  same  in  the  National  Intelligencer,  2,763  37i 

Difference,         ......         §5.623  12^ 


It  will  t;.ke  some  days  to  go  through  with  all  the  accounts  in  the  manner 
required  by  the  committee,  and  desired  by  Mr.  Blair;  we  will  proceed  with 
the  examination,  however,  and  complete  it  as  early  as  practicable. 

Mr.  DONOHO, 
Mr.  RIVES,  and 
Mr.  FORCE. 
Hon.  F.  Grundy, 

Chairman  Com.  P.  Office  and  P.  Roads,  Senate. 

There  was  a  note  appended  by  Mr.  Rives,  in  relation  to  the  actual  cost 
of  the  advertising  in  the  Globe,  of  which  no  copy  was  kept. 


[Doc.    No.  54.] 

(Jhambersburg,  November  IS,  1834. 

Daniel  Shaffer,  being  first  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  tlie 
respective  interrogatories: 

Question  I.     Are  you  postmaster? 

Answer  1.     Yes;  at  Mercersburg. 

Question  2.  How  is  the  mail  carried  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnells- 
bUrg? 

Answer  2.  It  is  carried  on  horseback  from  1st  of  April  last;  they  made 
a  few  attempts  to  carry  it  in  stages,  but  it  did  not  answer  a  good  purpose; 
it  is  a  tri- weekly  mail,  and  was  carried  before  1st  April,  1834, 1  think,  on 
horseback. 


197  [86  ] 

Andrew  Lindsay  and  myself  were  the  contractors  for  carrying  this  mail 
prior  to  1st  January,  1S32.  We  put  in  cur  bid  for  it  again  in  the  fall  of 
1831,  at  a  price  not  now  recollected;  it  is  in  the  department.  We  had  got 
^600  under  our  contract,  and  carried  it  in  two  horse  post  coaches,  except 
about  S  or  9  months  at  the  last,  when  we  carried  it  in  a  fc«r  horse  post 
coach.  We  thought  it  would  make  a  good  route  for  passengers,  and  we  did 
carry  a  great  many.  The  stages  still  run  round  by  Green  Castle,but  do  not 
carry  the  mail. 

I  remained  in  VVashiiigton  until  after  the  bids  were  given  in,  and  the 
next  day  after  they  were  put  in  I  met  Reeside,  and  said  to  him,  well,  colonel, 
I  suppose  you  will  take  my  route  from  me.  Yes,  said  he,  I  will  take  it  in 
spite  of  every  body.  I  put  in  for  that  route  at  S-IO  for  a  tri-weekly  mail, 
and  for  a  daily  mail  90  or  90  odd.  You  need  not  be  uneasy  about  it,  I  will 
establish  the  joute,  and  will  give  you  as  much  stock  on  it  as  you  want.  This 
was  after  the  bids  were  all  given  in,  and  before  the  contracts  were  cried  off. 

DANIEL  SHAFFER. 

[Doc.  No.  55.] 

Baltimore  City,  set.  ' 

Personally  came  before  me,  James  B.  Latimer,  one  of  the  justices  of  the 
peace  in  and  for  said  city,  Charles  W.  McKinstry,  who,  being  duly  sworn  on 
the  Holy  Evangely  of  Almighty  God,  did  give  tlie  following  answers  to  the 
two  interrogatories  herein  propounded  to  him,  this  13th  day  of  October, 
1834: 

Question  1.  Were  you  present  at  the  lettings  of  1831,  when  James  Ree- 
side's  bid  of  forty  dollars  for  the  route  from  Hagerstown  to  McCbhnellsburg 
was  announced  ? 

Answer.  I  was  in  the  room  in  the  General  Post  Office  when  it  was  an- 
nounced. 

Question  2.  Did  you  at  that  time,  or  any  other  time  shortly  after,  hear 
James  Reeside  name  the  sum  at  which  he  had  bid  off  the  route,  and  his 
reasons  for  taking  it  so  low?  Stale  such  conversation  as  near  as  you  caoj, 
and  the  lime  and  place  of  holding  it.  ' 

Answer.  At  the  time  of  letting  this  contract  there  was  a  good  deal  of 
talk  among  the  contractors  as  to  how  Reeside  could  take  it  so  low  as  forty 
dollars,  Mr.  Reeside  said  (I  think  it  was  in  the  room,  but  before  I  left  the 
General  Post  Office)  that  the  reason  of  taking  it  so  low  was,  that  he  intend- 
ed'to  connect  that  route  with  the  Eclipse  Line  from  Baltimore,  and  so  have 
a  mail  line  established  through  the  glades  to  Wheeling.  I  do  not  recollect 
who  it  was  that  was  speaking  to  him  about  it.  His  observation  was  not 
made  to  me;  but  being  generally  addressed  to  those  near  him,  I  heard,  as  I 
suppose  others  did.  I  never  had  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Reeside  on  the 
subject  of  this  contract. 

C.  W.  McKINSTRY. 
Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me,  , 

JAS.  B.  LAThMER, 
^justice  of  the  peace  of  the  State  of  Maryland  in  and 
for  the  City  of  Baltimore. 


C  86  ]  >  19S 

[  Doc.  No.  56.  ] 

CiiAMBERSBURG,  November  18,  1834. 

Elliott  T.  JLane,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 
interrogatories: 

Qaestion  1.  Have  you,  at  any  time,  had  a  conversation  with  James  Ree- 
gide  concerning  his  contract  for  carrying  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to 
MeConnellsburg?  If  so,  state  what  he  said. 

Answer  1.  The  time  Ism  not  certain,  but  I  know  it  was  soon  or  imme- 
ciiately  after  the  contract  was  ^iven  out,  in  the  fall  of  1831.  He  asked  me 
■what  I  supposed  he  had  taken  the  contract  at.  I  told  him  I  supposed  he 
would  get  an  increased  price,  as  his  stock  was  generally  good,  and  the  stock  ' 
on  that  road  was  not  good.  He  then  slated  what  he  had  put  in  as  a  bid:  it  was 
forty  or  forty-five  dollars  for  every  other  day,  and  ninety,  or  somewhere  in 
ninety,  for  an  every  day  stage.  We  had  a  good  deal  of  conversation  about 
the  contractors  on  the  national  road.  He  was  a  good  deal  excited,  and  said 
he  had  not  been  used  well  by  them.  He  said  that  rather  than  not  have  got 
that  cross  line  to  intersect  the  line  at  McConnellsburg  he  would  have  given 
the  department  five  hundred  dollars.  His 'object  appeared  to  be  to  have  a 
direct  line  along  that  road  to  intersect  the  Wheeling  line.  For  some  time 
before  I  ceased  to  act  as  postmaster  at  Mercersburg,  the  postmaster  at  the 
Welsh  run,  or  his  deputy,  used  to  come  about  once  a  week  for  his  mail,  and 
take  it  from  my  office.  I  understood  the  reason  why  this  was  done  was, 
that  the  stage  ran  round  by  Green  Castle,  and  did  not  come  past  the  Welsh- 
run  post  office.  Sometimes  in  the  winter  it  was  not  safe  for  the  mail  to 
come  by  the  direct  road  from  Hagerstown,  owing  to  ice  and  high  water  in 
the  Conococheague  creek. 

Question  2,  What  was  the  average  weight  of  the  mail  from  Hagerstown 
to  McConnellsburg? 

Answer  2.  I  could  not  form  an  estimate.  We  had  mail  bags  which  held 
about  one  and  a  half  to  two  bushels:  sometimes  it  came  full,  at  other  X'ttnes  it 
was  not.  Once  a  week  it  was  generally  full.  I  at  one  time  recommended 
to  Reeside  to  run  his  stages  round  by  Green  Castle  on  account  of  the 
difficulty  in  getting  over  the  Conococheague  creek.  The  distance  from 
Hagerstown  to  G  reen  Castle  is  about  ten  miles,  from  Green  Castle  to  McCon- 
nellsburg is  twenty  or  twenty- one  miles. 

ELLIOTT  T.  LANE. 

Questfon  3.  How  was  this  mail  carried  prior  to  the  1st  April  last? 

Answer  3.  I  received  a  letter  from  the  department,  dated  22d  November, 
1833,  staling  that  they  had  given  permission  to  the  contractors  to  carry  the 
snail  on  horseback  occasionally.     The  words  of  the  letter  are  as  follow: 

"  Post  Office  Departmb^nt, 
^'■Northern  District,  Northern  Divisiorif  Nov.  22,  1833. 
<<  Sir:  Privilege  has  been  given  to  the  contractors  on  route  No.  1,231  to 
change  the  hour  of  departure  of  their  four  horse  post  coach  from  Hagers- 
town to  seven  in  the  evening,  or  so  as  to  connect  at  that  place  with  the 
Reliance  line  from  Baltimore,  and  to  arrive  at  McConnellsburg  by  two  in 
the  morning,  connecting  with  the  Telegraph  line  going  west.  By  this  stage 
they  are  to  carry  a  niailj  but  the  main  mail  is  to  be  conveysd  on  horsebacky 


199  [  86  ] 

leaving  Hagerstown  as  at  present,  on  the  arrival  of  the  fast  line  from  Balti- 
more, say  eight  A.  M.,  and  arriving  at  McConnellsburg  by  three  P.  M. 

"  Respectfully, 

<'  S.  R.  HOBBIE, 

*'  f^ssist.  P.  M.  Gen. 

^'Postmaster,  Mercer&burg,  PaJ" 

After  the  receipt  of  ti)is  letter  the  mail  was  for  a  short  time  carried  some- 
times by  horseback  and  sometimes  by  stages;  then  it  was  entirely  carried  on 
horseback,  and  continued  till  1  ceased  to  act,  in.  the  following  April — no 
mail  coming  by  the  stages,  which  still  continued  to  run. 

ELLIOTT  T,  LANE. 


[Doc.  No.  57.] 

November  17,  1634. 

JACOB  GROVE. 

Question  I.  Did  you  at  any  time  hear  James  Reeside  say  he  had  con- 
tracted to  carry  the  mail  from  H^agerstown  to  McConnellsburg?  and  if  so, 
at  what  price?  , 

Answer.  I  did:  it  was  forty  or  forty -one  dollars.  ,  When  Culbertson 
and  I  sold  out  our  contract  to  Siders  and  Lewis  we  were  talking  about  it. 
We  got  $195  from  Hagerstown  to  Chambersburg  three  times  a  week,  and 
•we  said  it  was  not  much.  Reeside  said  he  carried  the  mail  from  Ha^^ers- 
town  to  McConnellsburg  for  forty  or  forty-one  dollars,  I  forget  which. 
This  was  about  two  years  ago. 


[Doc.  No.  58.] 


JACOB  GROVE. 


November  17,  1834. 


SILAS  fiARRY. 

Question  1.  Did  you  at  any  time  hear  James  Reeside  say  he  had  con- 
tracted to  carry  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg?  and  if  so, 
what  sum,  and  at  what  time? 

Answer.  I  could  hot  tell  the  time;  I  had  not  any  idea  of  being  examined. 
A  short  time  after  the  contract  was  taken  he  told  me  he  had  taken  the  con- 
tract for^ forty  dollars.  Tasked  him  how  it  was  lie  could  carr}'  the  mail  for 
that  price;  he  told  me  he  would  carry  it  for  nothing  sooner  than  miss  it. 
By  having  stock  on  that  line  he  would  have  a  feeder  for  his  great  line  from 
Chambersburg  to  Pittsburg,  in  which  he  was  then  or  about  to  be  engaged. 

SILAS  HAKRY. 


[Doc.  No.  59.] 
]So.  1231:  $40— SlO. 

This  contract,  made  the  fifteenth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  thirty-one,  between  James  Reeside,  of  Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania,  contractor  for  carrying  the  mails  of  the^United  States,  of  one 
part,  and  the  Postmaster  General  of  the  United  States  of  the  other  part, 
witnessetb,  that  the  said  parties  have  mutually  covenanted  as  lollows,  viz. : 
The  said  contractor  covenants  with  the  Postmaster  General; 


r  86  1  200 

1.  To  carry  the  mail  of  the  United  States  from  Hagerstown,  Maryland,  by 
W€lch  run,  Pennsylvania,  and  Mereersburgh,  to  McConnellsburgh,  and 
back,  three  times  a  wefek  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  at  the  rate  of  ten  dollars 
for  every  quarter  of  a  year,  during  the  continuance  of  this  contract;  to  be 
paid  in  drafts  on  postmasters  on  the  route  above  mentioned,  or  in  money,at 
the  option  of  the  Postmaster  General,  in  the  months  of  May,  Jlugust,  No- 
i)ember,  and  February. 

■  2.  That  the  mails  shall  be  duly  delivered  at,  and  taken  from  each  post  of- 
fice now  established,  or  that  may  be  established,  on  any  post  route  embraced 
in  this  contract,  under  a  penalty  of  ten  dollars  for  each  offence;  and  a  like 
penalty  shall  he  incurred  for  each  ten  minutes'  delay  in  the  delivery  of  the 
mail  after  the  time  fixed  for  its  dclirery  at  any  post  office  specified  in  the 
schedule  hereto  annexed;  and  it  is  also  agreed  that  the  Postmaster  General 
may  alter  the  times  of  arrival  and  departure  fixed  by  said  schedule,  and  alter 
the  route  (he  making  an  adequate  compensation  for  any  extra  expense  which 
may  be  occasioned  thereby);  and  the  Postmaster  General  reserves  the  right 
of  annulling  this  contract  in  casethe  contractor  does  not  promptly  adopt  the 
alteration  required.  ''  ^'    *      ^  -    ,■       ,   . 

3.  If  the  delay  of  the  arrival  of  said  mail  continue  until  the  hour  for  the 
departure  of  any  cotiRecting  mail,  whereby  the  mails  destined  for  such  con- 
necting m^ls  shall  lose  a  trip,  it  shall  be  considered  as  a  whole  trip  lost,  and 
-a  forfeiture  of  five  dollars  shall  be  incurred;  and  a  failure  to  take  the  maii 
or  to  make  the  proper  exchange  of  mails  at  connecting  points  shall  be  con** 
sidered  a  whole  trip  lost;  and  for  any  delay  or  failure  equal  to  a  trip  lost,  th^ 
Postmaster  General  shall  have  full  power  to  annul  this  contract. 

4.  That  the  said  contractor  shall  be  answerable  for  the  persons  to  whctot 
he  shall  commit  the  care  and  transportation  of  the  mail,  and  accountable  for 
any  daipages  whiclv  may  be  sustained  through  their  unfaithfulness  or  waht^ 
of  care. 

5.  That  seven  minutes  after  the  delivery  of  the  mail  at  any  post  office  on. 
the  aforesaid  route  not  named  in  the  annexed  schedule  shall  be  allowed  the 
postmaster  for  opening  the  same  and  making  up  another  mail  to  be  for- 
warded. 

6.  The  contractor  agrees  to  tlischarge  any  driver  or  carrier  of  said  mail 
whenever  required  to  do  so  by  the  Postmaster  General. 

7.  That  when  tb.e  said  mail  goes  by  stage,  such  stage  shall  be  suitable  for 
the  comfortable  accommodation  of  at  least  seven  travellers;  and  the  mail 
shall  invariably  be  carried  in  a  secure  dry  boot  under  the  driver's  feet,  or  in 
the  box  which  constitutes  the  driver's  seat,  under  a  penalty  of  fifty  dollars 
for  each  omission;  and  when  it  is  carried  on  horseback,  or  in  a  vehicle  other 
than  a  sta<^e,  it  shall  be  covered  securely  with  an  oilcloth  or  bear-skin  against 
rain  or  snow,  under  a  penalty  of  twenty  dollars  for  each  time  the  mail  is 
Wet  without  such  covering;  and  for  permitting  the  mail  to  be  injured  a  se-^ 
eond  time,  for  carrying  it  contrary  to  the  stipulations  before  recited,  the  Post- 
master  General  shall  have  aright  lo  aniiul  this  contract.  The  mail  shall  be 
put  into  a  post  office,  if  there  be  one  where  the  carrier  stops  at  night;  if  there 
be  no  office  it  shall  be  kept  in  a  secure  place,  and  there  be  locked  up,,  at  tlje 
contractor's  risk.  •       '  . 

8.  The  whole  forfeiture  and  penalties  to  be  incurred  in  the  course  of  any 
on^  trip  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  specified  in  the  third  article,  which  the 
contractor  hereby  binds  himself  lo  pay  to  the  Postmaster  General.' 

9.  'The  said  Postmaster  General  covenants  vvith  the  said  contractor  to  pay 


201  [  86 ?J 

as  aforesaid  for  the  carriage  of  said  mail  as  aforesaid,  at  the  rate  aforemen- 
tioned, quarterly,  in  the  months  of  May^  Jiiigust,  Novtmher,  and  Febru~ 
ary. 

10.  It  is  mutually  understood  by  the  contracting  parties  that  if  the  route, 
or  any  part  of  the  route  herein  mentioned,  shall  be  discontinued  by  act  of 
Congress,  or  in  the  opinion  of  the  Postmaster  General  becomes  useless,  then 
this  contract,  or  such  part  of  it,  shall  cease  to  be  binding  on  the  Postmaster 
General,  he  giving  notice  of  such  event,  and  making  allowance  of  one  month's 
extra  pay. 

11.  This  contract  shall  not  be  assigned  by  the  contractor  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Postmaster  General,  and  an  assignment  of  the  pay  shall  in  no  case 
release  the  contractor  or  his  sureties  from  their  responsibilities.  Should  the 
contractor  or  his  agents  be  engaged  in  the  transmission  of  information  by 
express,  on  the  routes  herein  designated,  more  rapidly  than  the  mail,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  department,  the  contracts  shall  be  forfeited. 

Provided  always,  That  this  contract  shall  be  null  and  void  in  case  the 
contractor  or  any  person  that  may  become  interested  in  this  contract,  direct- 
ly or  indirectly,  shall  become  a  postmaster  or  an  assistant  postmaster.  No 
member  of  Congress  shall  be  admitted  to  any  share  or  part  of  this  contract 
or  agreement,  or  to  any  benefit  to  arise  thereupon;  and  this  contract  shall  in 
all  its  parts  be  subject  to  the  terms  and  requisitions  of  an  act  of  Congress 
passed  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  eight,  entitled  '^  An  act  concerning  public  contracts." 

And  it  is  mutually  covenanted  and  agreed  by  the  said  parties  that  this  con- 
tract shall  commence  on  first  day  of  January  next,  and  continue  in  force  un- 
til the  thirty-first  day  of  December  inclusively,  which  will  be  in  the  year  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

In  witness  whereof,  they  have  hereunto  interchangeably  set  their  hands 
and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

(Signed)  JAS.  REESIDE. 

Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of 

(Signed)  RICHD.  C.  WHITESIDE. 

(Superseded  by  another  contract  made  with  James  Reeside.) 


[Doc.  No.  60.] 

November  17,  1834. 

JOHN  WATSON. 

Question  1.  Are  you  the  postmaster  at  Green  Castle? 

Answer  1.   Yes,  I  am. 

Question  2.  Did  the  mail  stage  from  Hagerstovvn  to  McConnellsbarg  at 
any  time  run  round  by  Green  Castle? 

Answer  2.  There  was  a  stage  said  to  be  a  mail  stage,  which  came  rouDd 
by  Green  Castle,  commencing  in  January,  1832,  and  ran  for  some  time,  say 
a  year,  and  continues  sometimes  yet  to  run;  Tsee  it  going  through. 

Question  3.  Does  it  bring  any  mail  to,  or  carry  any  mail  from  your  office 
in  Green  Castle? 

Answer  3.  There  was  a  mail  in  February,  1832,  brought  by  this  stage, 
and  quit  some  time  in  April  of  the  same  year. 

Question  4.  What  are  the  post  offices  on  the  direct  route  from  Hagers- 
town  to  McConnellsburg? 
2§ 


r  86  ]  202 

Answer  4.  7'he  Welsh  run  and  Mercersburg  post  offices.  In  running 
through  Green  Castle,  the  stage  would  not  pass  the  Welsh  run  office,  but 
came  in  to  Mercersburg. 

Question  5.  How  was  the  Welsh  run  post  office  supplied,  when  the 
stage  ran  round  by  Green  Castle? 

Answer  5.  By  report,  the  postmaster  went  into  Mercersburg  himself  part 
of  the  time.  About  harvest  last,  say  in  July,  I  saw  a  boy  on  horseback,  who 
told  me  he  was  carrying  that  mail. 

Question  6.  What  contractor  carried  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to  Greee 
Castle  since  1832? 

Answer  6.  It  is  carried  by  the  stage  which  runs  through  from  Hagers- 
town to  Chambersburg.  I  understood  Mr.  Culbertson  and  Mr.  Siders,  of 
Chambersburg,  were  the  conti-actors. 

JOHN  WATSON. 


[Doc.  No.  61.  ] 

Committee  Room,  December  3,  1S34. 
John  Siders,  having  been  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 
respective  interrogatories,  viz.: 

Question  1,  Have  you  at  any  time  carried  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to 
McConnellsburg  on  horseback?  If  so,  state  under  whose  employment;  when 
you  commenced;  how  long  you  continued  to  carry  it,  what  compensation 
you  received,  and  by  what  route. 

Answer  1.  1  have  carried  this  mail  on  horseback.  Josiah  Horton,  sub- 
contractor of  James  Reeside,  made,  in  conjunction  with  Sam.  R.  Slaymaker, 
a  new  arrangement  of  the  stages  of  the  Eclipse  line  as  to  the  lime  when  they 
should  leave  Hagerstown,  so  as  not  to  detain  the  passengers  there  over 
night;  of  course  they  could  not  take  the  Washington  and  other  mails  which 
came  in  next  morning,  and  I  was  employed  to  carry  the  mail  in  the 
mornings  on  horseback  to  McConnellsburgh.  This  arrangement  began  1st 
November,  1833,  and  continued  until  1st  August,  1834.  At  this  time  the 
mails  were  delivered  to  Mr.  Horton  in  the  evening,  and  he  so  carried  them 
for  a  few  trips;  but  the  postmaster,  Mr.  Kennedy,  found  it  would  not  do, 
as  the  morning  mails  lay  over  one  day,  and  then  refused  to  give  the  mail  bags 
in  the  evening,  and  Mr.  Horton  began  to  carry  them  himself  on  horseback 
in  the  morning,  and  continued  to  do  so  until  this  time.  By  carrying  the 
mail  from  Hagerstown  in  the  morning  they  met  Reeside  and  Slaymaker's 
Telegraph  line  at  McConnellsburg,  which  from  thence  carried  the  mails 
westward. 

I  charged  one  hundred  and  twenty  dollars  per  quarter.    1  had  no  contract. 

The  horse  mail  was  carried  on  the  straight  road  past  the  Welsh  run  post  office. 

Question  2.     Did  you  carry  the  mail   from  Hagerstown  through   Green 

Castle  to  Chambersburg?    If  so,  how  often  per  week;  for  what  price,  and 

what  is  the  distance? 

Answer  2.  Mr.  Thompson  and  myself  were  subcontractors  under  Cul- 
bertson and  Grove,  and  they  carried  tlie  mail  under  the  lettings  of  1831,  for 
about  a  year,  as  a  tri- weekly  mail;  when  we  bought  them  out,  v>'e  got  the  pri- 
vilege of  carrying  it  six  days  in  the  week;  and  it  so  continued  from  February, 
1833,  to  September,  1S34,  when  it  was  reduced  to  a  tri-weekly;  but  to  begin 
again  six  times  a  week,  after  1st  December,  1834,  and  continued  during  the 
setting  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature. 


a03  [  86  3 

The  distance  is  20  miles.  The  allowance  by  the  department  for  tt^- 
■vveekly  mails  is  295  dollars,  and  a  proportionate  increase  for  six  times  a 
v^eek. 

Question  3.  Was  the  road  from  Hagerstown  round  by  Green  Castle  to 
r\IcConnellsburg  a  mail  route? 

Answer  3.  No  it  was  not.     We  carried  the  Green  Castle  mail. 

Question  4.  Has  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg  been  car- 
ried at  an}*  time  round  through  Green  Castle  in  a  stage;  and  if  not,  why? 

Ansv^'er  4.  From  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  or  about  that,  the  mail  was 
carried  round  by  Green  Castle  in  stages  until  the  time  I  began  to  carry  it 
on  horseback  as  before  stated,  say  1st  November,  1S33.  It  was  at  first  daiiy; 
but  about  this  time,  November,  1S33,  was  made  tri-weekly.  No  mail  was 
opened  at  Green  Castle. 

Question  5.  At  whose  instance  or  by  whose  employment  did  James 
Watson,  postmaster  at  Welsh  run,  come  to  Mercersburg  for  his  mail? 

Answer  5.  I  am  not  able  to  say;  but  know  the  fact  of  his  coming  theri 
for  his  mail.  When  I  carried  it  on  horseback  the  mail  regularly  stopped 
at  his  office  going  and  returning  from  McConnellsburg,  and  has  done  so 
ever  since. 

Question  6.  Was  the  Conococheague  creek,  and  the  direct  road  from  Ha- 
gerstown to  McConnellsburg,  often  so  dangerous  to  pass  that  stages  cou' J 
not  get  along? 

Answer  6.  Yes;  at  that  time  it  was  often  dangerous  to  cross  the  creek, 
and  the  road  was  bad.  They  ran  round  by  Green  Casfle  because  the  road 
was  better,  and  there  was  a  bridge  across  the  creek.  The  distance  was  four 
miles  round. 

Question  7.  Do  you  know  any  thing  more  in  reference  to  the  transporta- 
tion of  the  mails,  the  manner  of  carrying  them,  the  sums  paid  for  so  doing, 
or  change  of  contracts,  material,  in  your  opinion,  to  be  communicated? 

Answer  7.  I  kept  the  tavern  in  Chambersburg  when  Reeside  and  Slay- 
maker  began  to  run  in  1832  with  the  fast  line.  They  left  Philadelphia  at 
first  at  2  o'clock  in  the  morning,  I  think,  and  arrived  at  my  house  next  night 
from  12  to  1 — never  varying  much.  This  continued  until  some  time  in  the 
summer  of  1832,  when  a  change  took  place  in  the  hour  of  departure  from 
Philadelphia,  which  I  think  was  8  o'clock.  They  then  arrived  at  my  house 
to  breakfast  next  morning,  say  half  past  6  to  hali  past  7. 

This  change  did  not  increase  the  expedition  of  the  mails;  they  ran  as  fist 
before  as  they  did  then.  The  expedition  commenced  in  Januar}^,  1832. 
They  generally  carried  seven  passengers,  but  I  have  seen  the  stages  so  fill 
of  mails  that  they  could  not  carry  passengers. 

The  mail  from  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg  has  always  been  irregular  in 
its  arrival.  In  the  summer  of  1832,  for  a  short  time,  it  arrived  from  G  to'7 
in  the  evening,  but  was  more  frequently  from  10  to  11. 

jy3   ,  JOHN  SIDERS. 

[Doc.  No.  62.] 

Chambersburg,  November  19,  1S34. 
William  Lewis,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  t'r  e 
following  interrogatories:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m 


r  86  ]  20r4 

Answer  1.  I  was  for  near  seven  years,  but  eeased  to  act  in  Octoberj 
1833.  I  now  hold  part  of  the  stock  from  Bedford,  on  the  Baltimore  and 
Wheeling  road,  and  became  an  owner  on  15th  May,  1S32. 

I  was  joint  owner  in  the  Western  Company  from  May,  1S32,  until  1st 
February,  1S33,  when  the  company  dissolved,  and  I  now  continue  as  above 
stated. 

Question  2.  When  did  you  first  acquire  any  knowledge  of  an  extra 
allowance  of  §10,000  a  year  to  said  company,  on  the  route  from  Phila- 
iielphia  to  Pittsburg;  and  did  you,  as  a  partner,  ever  receive  any  part  thereof? 
Answer  2.  I  never  knew  of  any  such  thing  until  I  saw  it  in  Jesse  Tom- 
linson's  deposition,  taken  before  the  committee  of  the  Senate  last  spring, 
and  also  in  Mr.  Reeside's  deposition  before  said  committee.  I  never  re- 
ceived any  portion  or  share  of  that  allowance. 

If  that  money  had  been  divided  as  the  other  money  for  the  contract,  I 
would  have  been  entitled  to  a  part  of  it  on  account  of  my  stock. 

1  have  no  knowledge  how  that  money  was  disposed  of  or  applied.  I  have 
had  no  conversation  with  Reeside  or  Slaymaker  about  it. 

Question  3.  Did  you  superintend  the  line  from  Bedford  to  Washington; 
if  so,  at  what  time? 

Answer  3.  From  Ist  April,  1833,  till  1st  October  of  same  year  I  did. 
Since  that  time  I  have  run  it  myself. 

Question  4.  At  what  time  did  the  mail  begin  to  run  daily  in  four  horse 
post  coaches  on  the  route  from  Bedford  to  Washington,  by  Somerset,  Mount 
Pleasant,  Robbstown,  and  Williamsport;  and  how  long  did  it  continue? 

Answer  4.  It  commenced  shortly  after  this  contract  of  1st  January,  1832, 
and  continued  until  a  few  days  after  1st  September  of  same  year,  when  half 
the  line  was  withdrawn,  leaving  it  a  tri-weekly  line,  at  which  it  continues 
at  present.  There  is  now,  since  1st  October,  1833,  an  increase  in  the  ex- 
pedition of  the  mail.  Before  that  it  took  two  days  from  Bedford  to  Wash- 
ino^ton ;  it  now  runs  through  in  twenty-four  hours.  That  increased  speed  was 
optional  with  myself.  Mr.  W'eaver,  Horton,  and  myself  are  the  sub-con- 
:ractors  under  Reeside.  We  increased  the  speed  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
passengers.  We  receive  from  Reeside  §2,900  a  year.  I  superintended  the 
line  from  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap  for  six  months  in  1833,  from  1st  April 
to  1st  October;  and  1  know  how  it  was  carried  in  the  winter  previous;  it  was 
carried  on  horseback,  and  until  some  time  about  the  middle  of  May,  when 
we  put  on  four  horse*  from  Cumberland  to  Burks,  and  from  there  to  Bed- 
ford two  horses;  four  horses  from  Hollidaysburg  to  the  change,  and  from 
there  to  Bedford  two  horses.  It  ran  every  other  day;  it  was  a  tri-weekly 
line.     It  never  ran  daily,  at  any  time,  iq  ray  knowledge. 

I  know  also  that  last  win\er  this  mail  was  carried  on  horseback. 
I  know  nothing  of  an  express  mail  having  run  between  Philadelphia  and 
Pittsburg  at  anv  time. 

WILLIAM  LEWIS. 


[Doc.  No.  63.] 

Chambersburg,  Nove^nber  17,  1834. 

Abraham  Harbach: 

Question  1.   Have  you  an  interest  in  the  mail  route  from  Philadelphia  to 
■i  ^Pittsburgh;  and  how  long  have  you  been  concerned? 

Answer  1.  Yes;  and  have  been  for  about  thirty  years. 


^205  [  S6  ] 

Question  2.  Did  you  know  any  thing  of  the  extra  allowance  of  10,000 
dollars  on  this  route  prior  to  its  being  noticed  in  the  report  of  this  commit- 
tee? 

Answer  2.   No,  I  did  not. 

Question  3.  Has  James  Reeside  ever  settled  with  you  and  the  other 
western  partners  for  that  allowance?  And  if  he  have,  state  particularly  iu 
what  manner  it  has  been  settled. 

Answer  3.  He  has  never  settled  with  our  company,  so  far  as  I  know  of. 
nor  did  he  say  any  thing  except  at  our  setlement,  I  think  in  Angust  last,  at 
the  Crossings;  when  the  company  met  and  called  on  him  about  those  extra 
allowances,  as  they  had  understood  they  iiad  been  made,  and  wanted  to 
know  from  him  how  he  would  account  for  them.  He  then  stated  we  had 
all  received  our  proportion ;  that  this  money  had  been  expended  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  concern,  VV'e  then  proposed  to  appoint  a  committee,  as  he 
did  not  seem  disposed  to  tell  how  it  had  been  expended.  It  was  agreed  or. 
that  the  committee  should  hear  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  by  themselves,  and 
they  were  to  report  to  the  company  whether  we  had  received  our  propor- 
tion. The  committee  were  not  to  state  the  particulars  as  to  how  this  monev 
had  been  expended,  but  merely  their  opinion  whether  we  had  received  our 
proportion  or  not.  The  committee  consisted  of  John  McKee  and  Demin; 
R.  rsIcNair;  of  Pittsburg;  they  are  now  part  of  the  company,  but  were  not 
when  the  allowances  were  made;  they  reported  favorably  to  Reeside  and 
Slaymaker.  They  were  not  at  liberty  to  state  what  passed  between  them 
and  Reeside  and  Slaymaker.  The  report  of  the  committee  was  in  writing, 
and  was  entered  I  think  on  our  minutes;  Col.  McNair  I  think  has  ihem. 

In  1831  we  ran  two  lines  to  Pittsburg  from  Philadelphia,  and  one  from 
Baltimore  by  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg;  atMcConnellsburg  the  three 
lines  met,  and  from  Bedford  one  of  the  three  lines  branched  oflf  through 
Somerset  to  Wheeling. 

The  expedition  of  these  lines  is  pretty  much  the  same  now  that  it  was 
then.  At  one  time  since  there  was  a  little  falling  off,  but  now  it  is  about  the 
same. 

ABRAM  HARBACH. 


Abraham  Harbach  called  again: 

Question.  Were  you  at  any  time  since  January,  1832,  concerned  in  the 
tnail  route  from  Bedford  to  Washington,  Pennsylvania;  and  if  so,  state  at 
%vhat  time? 

Answer.   I  was  concerned  as  a  stockholder  throughout  the  year  1832. 

Question.  Who  conducted  the  business  of  that  company  with  the  de- 
partmeht  and  received  the  pay? 

Answer.  James  Reeside  and  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker;  I  think  the  contract 
was  from  Mount  Pleasant  to  Washington,  but  it  went  under  the  name  of  the 
contract  from  Bedford  tc  Washington.  Sometimes  Slaymaker  and  some- 
times Reeside  settled  v/ith  the  company. 

Question.  How  much  did  they  account  for  with  the  company  as  received 
from  the  department  in.  the  year  1832  on  that  route,  for  carrying  the  mai'. 
from  Mount  Pleasant  to  Washington? 

Answ^.  The  sum  was  2,900  dollars,  from  Mount  Pleasant  to  Washing- 
ton. I  did  not  understand  that  there  was  any  allowance  for  the  mail  frotr 
Bedford  to  Mount  Pleasant;  if  there  were  any,  it  was  included  in  the  2,900 


dollars.     Part  of  the  year  1832  the  fast  mail  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg 
L  Went  past  Mount  Pleasant  to  Pittsburg,  and  part  of  the  year  a  part  of  the 

line  went  up  the  old  Greensburg  road. 
is!    Question.  Did  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  at  the  time  of  the  settlement  of 
vvvvhich  you  have  spoken  in  your  deposition,  say  that  they  applied  any  por- 
tion of  this  extra  pay  of  10,000  dollars  to  pay  any  part  of  the  old  debts  due 
from  the  company? 

Answer.  No,  I  never  heard  of  that  until  I  saw  it  in  Reeside's  deposition 
before  the  committee  of  the  Senate;  and  he  said  nothing  about  old  debts  at 
the  time  of  the  settlement  in  August  last. 

ABRAM  PIARBACH. 

[Doc.  No.  64.] 

December  26,  1834. 

JOHN  W.  WEAVER. 

Question  1 .  Do  you  know  any  thing  about  the  weight  of  the  mails  from 
Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg  since  1st  April^  1831?  If  so,  state  particularly  all 
you  know. 

Answer  1.  The  mails  in  1831,  at  Bedford,  on  Monday,  would  have 
weighed  I  suppose  1,000  pounds.  This  was  the  Sunday  mail  from  Phila- 
delphia; the  others  would  average  I  suppose  600  pounds.  They  increased 
the  latter  part  of  1831;  towards  the  close,  the  Sunday  mail  would  average 
I  suppose  1,400  pounds,  the  others  from  6  to  800  pounds. 

From  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  for  about  five  months,  the  Sunday  mail  I 
think  would  have  weighed  2,500  pounds;  one  day  in  the  week,  besides,  the 
mail  vvas  much  heavier  than  the  rest;  the  average  of  the  other  days  would  pro- 
bably be  800  pounds:  after  that  the  mail  swere  divided  at  Philadelphia,  and 
were  much  lighter  on  our  route.  I  did  not  reside  there  in  1833  buS  a  short 
time,  and  do  not  know  about  the  mails. 

Question  2.  Do  you  know  how  the  mails  were  carried  from  Washington, 
Pennsylvania,  to  Bedford,  in  1832? 

Answer  2.  Daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  until,  I  think,  1st  Septem- 
ber; then,  I  think,  daily  as  far  as  Mount  Pleasant,  and  the  rest  of  the  road, 
every  other  day.  From  Bedford  to  Mount  Pleasant  was  part  of  the  route 
from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg. 

Question  3.  Do  you  know  how  the  mail  was  carried  from  Cumberland  to 
Blair's  Gap,  in  1832? 

Answer  3.  From  about  25th  April,  1832,  it  was  carried  on  horseback 
three  times  a  week  from  Cumberland  to  Bedford,  until  in  July;  then  it  was 
carried  in  six-passenger  coaches,  part  of  the  way  with  four  and  part  with 
two  horses,  until  the  latter  end  of  October.  I  was  the  sub-contractor  under 
Reeside  for  carrying  this  mail,  and  carried  it  from  about  25th  April,  1832, 
to  1st  April,  1833.  After  October  I  carried  it  three  times  a  weekj  on  horse- 
back, until  April,  1833.  I  also  carried  the  mail,  as  sub-contractor,  from  Bed- 
ford to  Blair's  Gap  during  the  same  period.  I  ran  it  from  April,  1832,  to 
July,  three  times  a  week,  on  horseback;  then  in  six-passenger  coaches,  1 
think,  until  March,  1833,  some  part  of  the  road  with  four  horses,  some  part 
with  three,  and  the  balance  with  two  horses,  three  times  a  week.  I  re- 
ceived ^1,500  })er  annum  from  Mr.  Reeside,  for  carrying  this  mail  from 
Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap,  or  Hollidaysburg,  three  miles  from  the  Gap. 

Question  4.  During  the  year  1832,  did  you  generally  have  as  many  pas- 
sengers in  the  two  lines  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg  as  you  could  carry? 


207  [86  ] 

Answer  4.  Our  travel  from  the  east  generally  commenced  about  the  1st 
of  February,  and  we  ran  full  until  about  1st  May,  and  often  had  to  employ 
extras;  then  the  travelling  gradually  fell  off  until  about  1st  October,  during 
which  time  one  line  and  a  half  would  carry  the  passengers.  From  1st  Oc- 
tober until  1st  December  we  ran  full  again;  then  we  ran  very  light  from 
that  till  February;  a  line  and  a  half  would  be  more  than  enough  to  carry  all 
the  passengers  during  that  season  of  the  year.  The  above  statement  applies 
not  only  to  1832,  but  is  the  general  course  of  things  from  1S2S  up  till  1833, 
^vhen  my  knowledge  of  this  subject  ceased.  From  the  west,  if  the  river 
was  shut,  the  travel  began  about  1st  February;  if  the  boats  were  running, 
we  begun  to  carry  full  about  10th  or  12th  January.  We  run  pretty  full 
until  latter  end  of  April;  and  from  April  until,  I  should  suppose,  until  1st 
September,  one  line  and  a  half  would  carry  all  the  passengers.  In  Septem- 
ber they  begun  again  to  run  full,  and  continued  so  for  about  two  months; 
they  then,  until  January  or  February,  run  thin  again. 

Question  5.  What  was  the  comparative  cost  of  original  stock  used  upon 
your  fast  and  slow  lines  between  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg? 

Answer  5.  The  difference  of  the  cost  of  stock  would  be,  according  to  my 
calculations,  as  ten  to  seven,  consisting  in  the  difference  of  the  quality  of 
the  stock.  This  answer  refers  only  to  that  part  of  the  route  from  Cham- 
bersburg  to  Pittsburg,  not  having  been  interested  in  the  other,  or  eastern 
part  of  the  route. 

Question  6.  Is  there  any  difference  in  the  expenses  of  keeping  and  run- 
ning the  line? 

Answer  6.     None,  I  think. 

Question  7.  What  is  the  difference  in  wear  and  tear  of  the  stock  on  the 
two  lines? 

Answer  7.  I  should  think  that  the  wear  and  tear  of  the  Good  Intent 
over  the  other  line  would  be  about  one  fourth  more;  that  is  to  say,  if  it  would 
cost  $800  a  team  and  coach  in  the  Telegraph  per  year,  it  would  cost 
$1,000  in  the  Good  Intent. ;,  . 

Question  S.  Did  you  carry  the  whole  m^W  through  in  your  cjuick  line 
from  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  or  did  you  carry  a  part  of  it  in  the  ^.ow  line? 

Answer  8.  I  think  we  carried  all  the  mails  in  the  fast  line  except  the 
way  mails;  at  Bedford,  I  think,  during  that  year,  we  put  some  of  the  bags 
for  places  south  of  Pittsburg  in  the  line  by  \Vashington  to  Wheeling. 

JOHN  W.  WEAVER. 


[Doc.  No.  65.] 

December  20,  1834. 

Josiah  Horton,  being  duly  sworn,  gave: 

Question  1.  State  how  the  mail  has  been  carried  between  Hagerstown 
and  McConnellsburg  since  the  1st  of  January^  1832,  and  by  whom  it  has 
been  carried? 

Answer  1.  The  first  year  it  was  carried  daily  by  the  Pennsylvania 
company,  consisting,  of  Reeside,  Slaymaker,  and  others,  in  four  horse  post 
coaches.  The  stock  was  then  divided,  that  is,  at  the  end  cf  the  first  year; 
and  then  Andrew  Lindsav  and  Wm.  T.  McKinstry  carried  it  till  1st  Oc- 
tober in  same  way  and  daily.  On  1st  October,  1S33,  Slaymaker  and  I 
bought  McKinstry  out.     Then  Lindsay  still  run  his  part  till  1st  April 


C  86  3  208 

1834,  and  we  ran  daily  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  but  I  am  not  certain  if  we 
carried  the  mail  daily.  I  think  the  mail  was  stopped  a  little  before  1st  April- 

During  the  whole  of  the  year  1833  it  ran  daily,  and  it  carried  the  mail. 

We  started  Ist  January,  1834,  and  ran  out  in  the  evening  with  our 
coaches  for  a  while.  The  postmaster,  Mr.  Kennedy,  at  Hagerstown,  re- 
fused to  give  us  the  mail  in  the  evening,  and  then  Lindsay  carried  it  out  in 
the  morning  in  stages,  every  other  day,  till  1st  April,  1834. 

Since  that,  till  1st  December,  we  carried  it  on  horseback  three  times  a 
week,  and  ran  our  stages  too, but  did  not  carry  any  mail  in  them;  the  post- 
master would  not  give  us  the  mail  in  the  evening. 

Question  2.     Which  way  did  those  stages  run? 

Answer  2.  They  always  ran  round  by  Green  Castle,  which  was  not  on 
the  mail  route;  the  mail  route  was  by  Welch  run;  the  Welch  run  office  was 
supplied  from  the  Mercersburg  office.  I  do  not  know  by  whom  the  mail 
was  carried  over  from  Mercersburg  to  Welch  run. 

The  mail  was  not  opened  at  Green  Castle;  the  postmaster  .said  he  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Question  3.  Did  you  continue  to  run  daily  after  the  department  re- 
duced the  mail  to  a  tri-weekly? 

Answers.  The  stages  continued  to  run  daily  until  1st  April,  1834, 
since  then  every  other  day. 

Question  4.  Why  did  you  continue  to  run  the  stages  after  you  ceased  to 
carry  the  mail  in  them,  and  carried  it  on  horseback? 

Answer  4.  For  the  convenience  of  our  passengers,  to  keep  up  the  line 
from  Frederick  to  Wheeling  by  way  of  Bedford  and  Washington.  It  was 
since  1st  October,  1833,  distinct  from  the  Pennsylvania  company. 

Question  5.  How  was  the  mail  from  Bedford  to  Washington  carried 
since  1st  January,  1832? 

Answer  5.  It  was  carried  daily  from  1st  January,  1832,  to  1st  Septem- 
ber, 1832,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  by  the  Pennsylvania  company;  from 
then,  by  the  same  company,  every  other  day,  until  1st  January,  1833. 
After  1st  January,  1833,  it  was  carried  by  Lewis,  Reeside  and  Weaver 
every  other  day,  and  so  continued  until  1st  October,  1833;  then  Lewis, 
Weaver,  Ewing  and  myself  bought  out  Reeside,  and  have  carried  the  mail 
in  four  horse  post  coaches  every  other  day  until  the  present  time. 

Question  6.     Who  paid  you  for  carrying  that  mail? 

Answer  6.  James  Reeside.  We  took  his  stock,  and  were  to  work  it 
out.  He  drew  the  money  at  Washington.  We  got  from  Mr.  Reeside 
$2,900  per  annum  for  carrying  the  mail.  We  are  paid  in  the  same  way  for 
carrying  the  mail  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg,  at  jg700  per  annum. 

Question  7.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  an  extraordinary  increase  of 
mail  matter  on  the  route  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg  in  the  year  1832? 

Answer  7.  I  was  in  Bedford  in  the  fall  of  the  year,  a  few  times,  and 
saw  the  stages  so  full  of  mails  that  they  could  not  carry  passengers.  This 
was  after  Mr.  Carter  quit,  and  I  went  up  to  see  how  the  business  was  going 
on 

Question  8.  Did  not  the  stages  generally  run  with  but  few  passengers, 
in  the  summer  of  1832,  in  consequence  of  the  cholera  in  the  eastern 
cities? 

Answer  8.  I  knojy  they  run  very  light  to  and  from  Baltimore.  I  was 
there  at  the  time,  ana  in  the  summer  of  1833,  when  the  cholera  was  in 
Wheeling;  there  was  scarcely  a  passenger  for  18  or  19  days  between  Wheel- 
ing and  Baltimore.  JOSIAH  HORTON. 


209  \  86  ] 


December  12,  IS34.  ■ 
[  Doc.  No.  66.  ]  "'^  h^i-nzr- 

JOHN    PIPER. 

Question  1.  How  long  have  you  been  superintending  the  transportation 
of  the  mails  for  James  Reeside;  and  where? 

Answer  1.  About  two  years  and  an  half  :  at  Bedford  I  have  the  charge 
of  all  his  mails  running  through  and  from  there.  I  have  been  concerned 
with  the  company  since  1830,  and  have  a  knowledge  how  they  were  run; 
good  part  of  the  time  Lewis  and  Carter  were  concerned  with  me. 

Question  2.  From  1830  to  the  present  time,  how  has  the  mail  been  run 
between  Bedford  and  Washington,  Pennsylvania. 

Answer  2.      It  has  been  run  daily  until  som.ething  like  a  year;  may  be, 

possibly,  a  little  over  a  year,  in  four  horse  post  coaches:  for  the  last  year  or  so 

it  has  been  run  in  four  horse  post  coaches  every  other  day,  and  runs  so  now. 

Question  3.     Do  you  know  tKe  precise  time  at  which   the  daily  mail 

ceased? 

Answer  3.  The  half  of  the  eclipse  line  stopped  two  years  ago,  and  then 
the  good  intent  kept  up  the  mail  daily  for  some  time,  until  it  became  an 
every  other  day  mail. 

Question  4.  Did  this  Good  Intent  run  through  to  Washington,  direct;  or 
did  it  run  by  Mount  Pleasant  to  Pittsburg? 

Answer  4.     It  ran  by  Mount  Pleasant  to  Pittsburg. 
Question  5.     Since  the  Eclipse  line  stopped,  has  any  daily  mail  run  through 
from  Mount  Pleasant  to  Washington? 

Answer  5.     I  do  not  know  how  that  link  was  supplied;  the  Eclipse  line 
run  every  other  day  to  Washington,  and  I  know  of  no  other  line  running. 
'-^-   Question  6.     From  1st  January   1832  to  the  present  time,  how  has  the 
mail  been  conveyed  from  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap? 

Answer  6.  It  was  carried  for  the  first  year  by  John  W.  Weaver;  I  do 
not  know  exactly  how  it  was  carried;  1  have  seen  coaches  on  the  road. 
After  that,  in  1S33,  Mr.  Reeside  took  charge  of  it  himself,  under  the  super- 
intendence of  Lewis  and  myself.  We  carried  it  in  four  horse  post  coaches 
most  of  the  year — say  eight  months,  until  the  road  became  so  bad;  we  car- 
ried it  tri-weekly.  Mr.  Reeside  instructed  us  to  carr}'  it  daily,  but  Lewis 
insisted  that  three  times  a  week  was  enough;  and  we  so  carried  it:  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  other  four  months  it  was  carried  in  two  horse  coaches  or 
double  geared  barouches;  sometimes  I  carried  it  on  horseback — that  was 
owing  to  the  badness  of  the  roads.  During  1834  it  has  been  carried  in 
three  horse  coaches  nearly  all  the  time;  in  the  early  part  I  carried  it  in  two 
horse  barouches,  but  after  that  put  on  three:  I  ran  it  tri-weekly  until  Oc- 
tober last,  when  Mr.  Hobbie  ordered  a  reduction  of  the  times,  and  to  be 
carried  on  horseback:  I  have  continueil  the  coaches  up  to  the  present  time 
on  account  of  the  bulk  of  the  mail;  sometimes  I  could  carry  it  on  horse- 
back, sometimes  not,  as  the  packages  could  not  go  into  the  saddlebags.  The 
road  was  so  bad  it  was  difficult  to  get  along  with  four  horses. 

Question  7.  In  1833,  did  you  run  with  four  horses  only  at  the  ends  of  the 
routes,  and  then  put  on  two  in  the  intermediate  parts? 

Answer  7.     Three  of  the  routes  we  ran  four  horse  post  coaches;  this  was 

three  fourths  of  the    distance — it  is  a  little  more:  we  ran  the  other  part 

sometimes  with  two,  sometimes  three,  and  occasionally  four  horses:  the  same 

quantity  of  horses  were  kept  up.     From  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap  we 

27 


[  86  ]  H^IO 

took  from  7  o'clock  A.  M.  to  about  5  to  6  P.  M. ;  thirty  miles  to  Bed- 
ford. From  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap  we  started  next  morning  from  6  to 
7  A.  M  ,  and  arrived  at  HoUidaysburg,  a  little  beyond  Blair's  Gap,  generally 
in  twelve  hours;  this  is  thirty-four  miles. 

Question  8.  Can  you  tell  us  precisely  at  what  time  in  1832  Mr.  Reeside 
began  to  carry  the  mail  on  the  route  from  Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap? 

Answer  8.  Between  January  and  April,  perhaps  the  1st  of  April,  I 
know  he  was  getting  his  stock. 

Question  9.     Did  Reeside  and  Clarke  carry  it  at  the  same  time? 

Answer  9.  I  do  not  know  what  time  Clarke  quit  carrying  it;  1  know 
Weaver  bought  Clarke's  stock. 

Question  10.  Did  Reeside  or  Weaver  commence  immediately  to  carry 
the  mail  in  coaches,  or  did  they  carry  it  on  horseback  for  some  time? 

Answer  10.  When  I  first  noticed  it  in  Weaver's  possession  he  had  the 
coaches  on. 

Question  11.     At  what  time  was  tbat? 

Answer  11.  It  was  in  the  spring  of  IS32.  About  the  first  of  April,  I 
had  gone  to  Philadelphia  with  about  104  horses,  and  when  I  returned  the 
coaches  were  on.     It  took  me  some  time  before  1  returned. 

Question  12.      At  what  time  did  you  return? 

Answer  12.  I  think  it  was  the  forepart  of  June,  of  that  I  am  not  posi- 
tively certain. 

Question  13.  At  this  time  had  he  coaches  running  on  both  ends  of  the 
route? 

Answer  13.  I  am  not  quite  certain  if  they  were  on  both  ends;  they 
came  to  the  office  next  door  to  my  store.  I  recollect  the  drivers;  but  I  can- 
not say  whether  they  were  or  not  on  both  ends  before  I  got  home. 

Question  14.  At  what  time  were  the  stages  put  on  the  route  in  the 
spring  of  1833? 

Answer  14.  They  were  put  on  very  early  in  the  spring.  In  January, 
February,  and  March,  there  had  been  a  great  deal  of  rain,  and  I  had  the 
stock  ready  about  four  weeks  before  we  could  get  them  on  the  route  from 
the  deepness  of  the  roads.  During  those  months  the  mail  was  generally 
carried  in  two  horse  barouches;  sometimes  I  carried  it  on  horseback.  As 
soon  as  ever  the  roads  dried  up  in  the  spring,  in  April,  or  perhaps  sooner, 
the  coaches  began  lo  run.  Sometimes  we  had  to  stop,  as  the  drivers  said 
they  could  not  get  along,  and  we  had  to  send  the  mail  in  wagons  or  ba- 
rouches. 

Question  15.  In  the  winter,  when  you  could  not  run  with  your  post 
coaches,  did  you  run  this  light  mail  wagon  on  both  ends  of  the  road  or  on 
one? 

Answer  15.  Generally  on  one.  On  the  southern  end  the  mail  was  light, 
and  could  be  carried  on  horseback.  When  we  could  get  through  with 
coaches  we  carried  it  so. 

Question  16.  How  was  the  mail  carried  between  Hagerstown  and  Mc 
Connellsburg  since  1st  January,  1832? 

Answer  16.  I  would  rather  that  the  evidence  of  Messrs.  Siders,  Horton, 
and  others  would  be  taken  on  this  route,  as  they  had  the  immediate  direc- 
tion of  the  mail,  and  I  had  not. 

Question  17.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  a  great  increase  of  mail  mat- 
ter in  1832  on  the  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg  route? 

Answer  17.     There  was  a  very  great  increase  in  1832;  in  the  latter  par 


211  [  86  ] 

of  that  year,  and  along  in  the  summer,  I  have  seen  mails  that  would  weigh 
from  twenty-two  to  thirty  hundred,  over  a  ton  at  all  events;  these  were  the 
heavy  mails,  once  a  week,  sometimes  twice,  when  no  passengers  could  go; 
this  increase  began  in  the  summer  of  1S32.  It  remained  heavy  during  the 
winter  of  1832-3,  and  then  became  lighter.  The  mail  before  always  was 
heavy,  but  not  so  as  to  exclude  6  passengers,  as  it  did  in  1832-3.  The 
mail  is  still  very  heavy. 

Question  18.  What  time  in  the  summer  of  1832  did  the  mails  become 
so  heavy? 

Answer  IS.  I  took  charge  of  the  ?tock  in  October,  and  when  I  did  so 
the  weight  of  the  mails  came  under  my  own  observation,  and  they  were 
then  as  before  mentioned. 

Question  19.  Did  you  keep  a  book  in  which  the  number  of  passengers 
were  entered  daily,  and  is  that  book  now  in  possession  of  William  ^. 
Thompson,  at  Chambersburg? 

Answer  19.  I  know  nothing  of  any  book  kept.  The  waybills  were 
made  at  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg,  and   we  kept  no  register  at  Bedford. 

Question  20.  When  the  weight  of  the  mails  crowded  the  passengers  out 
of  the  quick  line,  did  they  not  go  in  the  slow  line? 

Answer  20.     I  cannot  tell. 

Question  21.  About  what  time  in  the  winter  of  IS33,  or  spring,  did  the 
mails  decrease? 

Answer  21.     I  cannot  say. 

JOHN  PIPER. 


[Doc.  No.  67.] 

Chambersburg,  November  IS,  1834. 

JOHN  H.   HOFINS,   POSTMASTER,  BEDFORD. 

Question  1.  Can  you  tell  how  the  mail  has  been  carried  from  Cumberland 
to  Bedford,  and  from  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap  since  Jst  January,  1832? 

Answer  1.   The  majority  of  trips  in  stages,  four  horse  and  three  horse. 

From  Bedford  to  Hollidaysburg  in  three  horse  stages.  From  Cumber- 
land to  Bedford  in  two  horse  stages,  sometimes  in  four  horse  stages.  The 
four  horse  stages  were  used  through  the  summer  season,  particularly  during 
the  season  of  the  Bedford  Springs.  When  stages  did  not  run  it  was  carried 
on  horseback.  In  bad  roads,  when  stages  could  not  be  used,  it  was  carried 
on  horseback. 

Question  2.  Can  you  specify  what  portion  of  the  time  the  mail  was  car- 
ried in  four  horse  stages;  what  portion  in  two  horse  stages;  and  what  por- 
tion on  horseback?  State  as  near  as  you  can. 

Answer  2.  The  four  horse  stages  were  used  during  (ne  season  of  the 
Springs,  perhaps  two  months,  on  the  road  from  Bedford  to  Hollidaysburg. 
The  three  horse  stages  were  used  from  Bedford  to  Hollidaysburg,  perhaps 
for  six  months  in  the  year;  and  the  remainder  of  the  time  it  was  carried  on 
horseback,  making  eight  months  in  stages  and  four  on  horseback;  during  the 
whole  time  it  ran  every  other  day;  for  two  or  three  weeks  in  the  season  of  the 
Springs  it  ran  daily,  I  think.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  they  brought  the 
mail  daily  or  not. 

Question  3.   What  is  the  average  weight  of  the  mail  bag  on  that  route? 


[  86  ]  212 

Answer  3.  On  distribution  days  it  might  weigh  forty  pounds;  on  Other 
days  about  half  or  a  little  less.  The  principal  distribution  day  sometimes  it 
would  weigh  forty  pounds;  this  was  Mondays  generally. 

From  Bedford  to  Cumberland  the  trips  were  performed  most  of  the  time 
on  horseback.  Perhaps  four  months  of  the  summer  it  was  in  stages  of  four 
and  two  horses.     I  think  about  half  of  the  time  in  each. 

This  mail  ran  every  other  day.  During  the  season  of  the  Springs  it  ran 
sometimes  daily. 

Question  4.   What  is  the  weight  of  that  mail? 

Answer  4.  It  is  a  small  mail.  I  could  not  come  very  near.  It  was  very 
small,  averaging  less  than  five  pounds. 

Question  5.   Where  did  that  mail  bring  letters  from? 
Answer  5.  From  Cumberland  for  Bedford,  and  for  distribution.     There 
were  some  trips  three  or  four  letters.     It  would  not  average  so  many. 
Question  6.   Where  did  the  HoUidaysburg  mail  carry  letters?  ' 

Answer  6.  For  Venango,  Armstrong  county,  Indiana  county,  Cambria 
county,  Huntington  county,  and  Centre  and  Mifflin  counties. 

The  letters  and  packages  were  in  part  from  Bedford,  and  in  part  from  the 
distributing  office  at  Chambersburg.  "^i^J^.;^:  a;j;snifia  su  k. 

Question  7.  When  did  James  Reeside  commence  running  that  route? 
Answer  7.  I  cannot  say  particularly,  it  may  be  two  years  since. 
Since  the  mail  has  been  run  from  Bedford  to  HoUidaysburg  in  carriages, 
the  distribution  has  increased.  The  mail  has  run  this  summer  pretty  much 
i-n  carriages.  The  carrying  of  the  mail  in  carriages  has  been  ordered  to  be 
discontinued  by  the  department  since  about  two  weeks.  Since  that  it  has 
been  carried  still  in  carriages.  One  time  it  was  too  heavy  to  be  carried  on 
horseback.  That  mail  I  think  would  not  have  weighed  fifty  pounds,  but 
was  too  bulky  to  go  into  a  pair  of  saddlebags. 

J.  H.  HOFiNS. 


Post  Office,  Bedford,  Pa.,  June  4,  1832. 

Sir:  Mr.  Reeside  &  Co.  have  commenced,  the  28th  of  May  ultimo,  to- 
convey  the  mail  three  times  a  week  on  route  1215,  Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford, 
and  1230,  Bedford  to  Cumberland,  on  horseback,  but  hare  not  as  yet  com- 
menced in  stages.  I 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

(Signed)  J.  H.  HOFINS. 


Post  Office,  Bedford,  Pa.,  July  28,  1832. 

•^''t/SiR:  The  26th  inst.  Mr.  Reeside  commenced  with  a  two  horse  coach  on 
route  No.  1230,  from  Bedford  to  Cumberland,  to  convey  the  mail;  but  on 
route  1215,  Blair's  Gap  to  Bedford,  is  still  performed  on  horseback. 

Yours,  very  respectfully^^^-^^  _^      „r.T.TXTo 
(Signed)  X  H.  HOFIN^. 

M    i 


213  [  86  ] 

[Doc.  No.  68.] 

WashingtoiV,  Deceinher  24,  1831. 
Sir:  Having  understood  application  is  made  to  the  Post  OiBce  Department 
for  liaving  the  mail  carried  in  stages  from  HoUidaysburg  to  Bedford;  from 
my  knowledge  of  that  section  of  country,  the  inclination  to  the  Bedford 
springs,  and  the  termination  o  f  the  Pennsylvania  canal  being  at  Hollydays- 
burg,  must  necessarily  render  such  an  improvement  popular  with  the  de- 
partment, and  giye  general  satisfaction  to  that  section  of  the  country. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

SILAS  MOORE. 
Rev.  0.  B.  Brown. 

P.  S.  Respecting  the  improvement  as  above  suggested,  from  my  know- 
ledge of  that  section  of  country,  and  adjoining  our  mail  route,  1  hope  the 
applicant  may  succeed,  &e. 
4<s  ,V^  WILLIAM  COLDER.  ,5 

[HoUidaysburg  to  Bedford,  Pa.  Silas  Moore  and  Wm.  Colder  recommend 
that  this  mail  be  carried  in  stages  between  those^points.] 

[Doc.  No.  69.] 

December  31,  1831. 
No.  1,215,  from  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap;  and  No.  1,230,  from  Bedford 
to  Cumberland,  Maryland.  I  will  run  the  mail  in  four  horse  post  coaches, 
and  connect  at  each  end  of  the  routes  with  every  mail  that  may  be  ordered 
by  the  Post  Office  Departinent,  for  three  times  a  week,  and  give  such  ex- 
pedition as  may  be  required  by  the  department,  for  the  yearly  compensa- 
tion of  g4,500.  I  refer  you  to  the  Hon.  Geo.  Bird*s  letter;  as  also  to  Messrs. 
Colder  and  Moore. 

JAMES  REESIDE. 

[No.  1,215  and  1,230,  Pa.,  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap,  33  miles,  once  a  week; 
Bedford  to  Cumberland,  35  miles,  once  a  week;  James  Clark,  ;S275  for  both. 

James  Reeside  proposes  to  carry  the  mail  in  four  horse  post  coaches  on 
these  routes,  three  times  a  week,  and  to  connect  at  each  end  with  any  other 
mails  the  department  may  direct,  and  to  give  such  expedition  as  may  be  re- 
quired, for  $4,500  per  annum.  Refers  to  Hon.  George  Bird's  letter,  and 
to  Messrs.  Colder  and  Moore.] 

[Doc.  No.  70.] 

December  10,  1832. 
Sir:  I  will  agree  to  transport  the  United  States  mail  on  post  routes  No. 
1,215  and  1,230,  from  Cumberland,  via  Cumberland  valley,  Bedford,  Bed- 
ford, Md.  springs,  Allum  Bank,  and  Newry,  to  Blair's  Gap  and  HoUidays- 
burg; distance  76  miles,  3  times  a  week,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  and 
run  so  as  to  conliect  with  the  great  northern  mail  at  HoUidaysburg,  and  at 
Cumberland  with  all  the  important  mails  arriving  at  that  place,  ^y  esta- 
blishing coaches  on  this  very  important  route  it  will  form  a  connexion  with 


[  86  ]  214 

all  the  ^reat  valley  of  Virginia  to  Bedford  springs;  as  also  the  northern 
partof  Pennslyvania.  Stages  have.been  JestabJished  on  1.215  for  several  years 
past,  and  from  the  immense  internal  improvement  in  operation  between 
those  two  points,  it  will  be  a  public  accommodation,  as  also  an  interest  to 
the  department.  I  will  perform  the  whole  service  for  the  yearly  compen- 
sation of  §4,500. 

Respectfully,  <S*c., 

JAMES  REESIDE. 
Hon.  W.  T.  Babrs", 

Postmaster  General. 

Copy  of  endorsement . 

Nos.  1,215  and  1,230,  Pa.;  No.  1,215,  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap,  33  miles, 
once  a  weeii,  on  horseback;  No.  1,230,  Bedford  to  Cumberland,  35  miles, 
once  a  week,  on  horseback.     James  Clark,  S275  for  both  routes. 

James  Reeside  proposes  to  carry  the  mail  on  these  routes,  and  to  include 
Bedford  Springs,  three  times  a  week,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  connecting 
with  the  great  mail  from  Harrisburg  to  Pittsburg  at  Blair's  Gap,  and  at 
Cumberland  with  all  the  important  mails  which  arrive  at  that  place,  for 
S4,500  per  annum. 

James  Reeside:  Postmasters  at  Blair's  Gap,  Bedford,  and  Camberlanp 
informed  13th  April,  1S32.  Contract  [made  April  l3tb,  1832.  Decision 
made  5th  April,  1832.     Contract  at  the  price  stated. 

[Doc.  No.  71.] 

Nos.  1,215  and  1230,  for  S4,500— §1,125. 

This  contract,  made  the  fifteenth  day  of  March,  in  the  year  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  thirty-two,  between  James  Reeside,  of  Philadelphia, 
(Pa  )  contractor  for  carryifig  the  mails  of  the  United  States  of  one  part,  and 
the  Postmaster  General  of  the  United  States  of  the  other  part,  witoesseth, 
that  the  said  parties  have  mutually  covenanted  as  follows,  viz.:  The  said 
contractor  covenants  with  the  Postmaster  General, 

1.  To  carry  the  mail  of  the  United  States  from  Cumberland,  (Md.)  by 
Rainesburo-h,  (Pa.)  Bedford,  Bedford  Springs,  Allum  Bank,  and  Newry,  to 
Blair's  Gap  and  back,  three  times  a  week  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  at  the 
rate  of  one  thousand  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  for  every  quarter 
of  a  year,  during  the  continuance  of  this  contract;  to  be  paid  in  drafts  on 
Dostmasters  on  the  route  above  mentioned,  or  in  money,  at  the  option  of 
tlie  Postmaster  General,  in  the  months  of  May,  August,  November  and 
February. 

2.  That  the  mails  shall  be  duly  delivered  at  and  taken  from  each  post 
office  now  established,  or  that  may  be  established  on  any  post  route  em- 
braced in  this  contract,  under  a  penally  often  dollars  for  each  offence;  and 
a  like  penalty  shall  be  incurred  for  each  ten  minutes  delay  in  the  delivery 
of  the  mail  after  the  time  fixed  for  its  delivery  at  any  post  office  specified 
in  the  schedule  hereto  annexed;  and  it  is  also  agreed  that  the  Postmaster 
General  may  alter  the  times  of  arrival  and  departure  fixed  by  said  schedule, 
and  alter  the  route  (he  making  an  adequate  compensation  for  any  extra 
expense  which  may  be  occasioned  thereby;)  and  the  Postmaster  General 


215  [  S6  3 

reserves  the  right  oi  aDnulling  this  contract,  in  case  the  contractor  does  not 
promptly  adopt  the  alteration  required. 

3.  If  the  delay  of  the  arrival  of  said  mail  continue  until  the  hour  for  the 
departure  of  any  connecting  mail,  whereby  the  mails  destined  for  such 
connecting  mails  shall  lose  a  trip,  it  shall  be  considered  as  a  whole  trip  lost, 
and  a  forfeiture  of  one  hundred  dollars  shall  be  incurred;  and  a  failure  to 
take  the  mail,  or  to  make  the  proper  exchange  of  mails  at  connecting 
points,  shall  be  considered  a  whole  trip  lost;  and  for  any  delay  or  failure 
equal  to  a  trip  lost,  the  Postmaster  General  shall  have  full  power  to  annul 
this  contract. 

4.  That  the  said  contractor  shall  be  answerable  for  the  persons  to  whom 
he  shall  commit  the  care  and  transportation  of  the  mail,  and  accountable  for 
any  damages  which  may  be  sustained  through  their  unfaithfulnefs  or  want 
of  care. 

5.  That  seven  minutes  after  the  delivery  of  the  mail  at  any  post  office 
on  the  aforesaid  route  not  named  in  the  annexed  schedule,  shall  be  allowed 
the  postmaster  for  opening  the  same,  and  making  up  another  mail  to  be 
forwarded.    , 

6.  The  contractor  agrees  to  discharge  any  driver  or  carrier  of  said  mail, 
whenever  required  to  do  so  by  the  Postmaster  General. 

7.  That  when  the  said  mail  goes  by  stage,  such  stage  shall  be  suitable 
for  the  comfortable  accommodation  of  at  leai-t  seven  travellers;  and  the  mail 
shall  invariably  be  carried  in  a  secure  drj'  boot,  under  the  driver's  feet,  or 
in  the  box  which  constitutes  the  driver's  seat,  under  a  penalty  of  fifty 
dollars  for  each  omission;  and  when  it  is  carried  on  horseback,  or  in  a  vehi- 
cle other  than  a  stage,  it  shall  be  covered  securely  with  an  oilcloth  or  bear- 
skin, against  rain  or  snow,  under  a  penalty  of  twenty  dollars  for  each  time 
the  mail  is  wet,  without  such  covering:  and  for  permitting  the  mail  to  be 
injured  a  second  time,  for  carrying  it  contrary  to  the  stipulations  before 
recited,  the  Postmaster  General  shall  have  a  right  to  annul  this  contract. 
The  mail  shall  be  put  in  a  post  office,  if  there  be  one  where  the  carrier 
stops  at  night;  if  there  be  no  office,  it  shall  be  kept  in  a  secure  place,  and 
there  be  locked  up,  at  the  contractor's  risk. 

8.  The  whole  forfeiture  and  penalties  to  be  incurred  in  the  course  of  any 
one  trip  shall  'not  exceed  the  sum  specified  in  the  third  article,  which  the 
contractor  hereby  binds  himself  to  pay  to  the  Postmaster  General. 

9.  The  said  Postmaster  General  covenants  with  the  said  contractor  to 
pay  as  aforesaid  for  the  carriage  of  said  mail  as  aforesaid,  at  the  rate  afore- 
mentioned, quarterl}^,  in  the  months  of  May,  August,  November  and 
February. 

10.  It  is  mutually  understood  by  the  contracting  parties,  that  if  the  route, 
or  any  part  of  the  route  herein  mentioned,  shall  be  discontinued  by  act  of 
Congress,  or  in  the  opinion  of  the  Postmaster  General  becomes  useless,  or 
if  a  line  of  stages  or  steamboats  shall  be  e;stablished  on  the  whole  or  any 
part  of  it  where  the  mail  is  not  so  carried  under  this  contract,  then  this  con- 
tract, or  such  part  of  it,  shall  cease  to  be  binding  on  the  Postmaster  Gene- 
ral, he  giving  notice  of  such  event,  and  making  allowance  of  one  month's 

-iextra  pay. 

I  11.  This  contract  shall  not  be  assigned  by  the  contractor  without  the 
consent  of  the  Postmaster  General,  and  an  assignment  of  the  pay  shall  in  no 
case  release  the  contractor  or  his  sureties  from  their  responsibilities. 
Should  the  contractor  or  his  agents  b<j   engaged  in    the   transmission  ©1' 


[  86  ]  ai6 

information  by  express  on  the  routes  herein  designated  more  rapidly  than 
the  mail,  without  the  consent  of  the  department,  the  contract  shall  be 
forfeited. 

Provided  always,  That  this  contract  shall  be  null  and  void,  in  case  the 
contractor  or  any  person  that  may  become  interested  in  this  contract, 
directly  or  indirectly,  shall  become  a  postmaster  or  an  assistant  postmaster. 
No  member  of  Congress  shall  be  admitted  to  any  share  or  part  of  this  con- 
tract or  agreement,  or  to  any  benefit  to  arise  thereupon;  and  this  contract  ^ 
shall,  in  all  its  parts,  be  subject  to  the  terms  and  requisitions  of  an  act  of 
Congress,  passed  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight,  entitled  "  An  act  concerning  public 
contracts." 

And  it  is  mutually  covenanted  and  agreed  by  the  said  parties,  that  this 
contract  shall  commence  on  first  day  of  April  next,  and  continue  in  force 
until  the  thirty-first  day  of  December  Inclusively,  which  will  be  in  the  year 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty -five. 

In  witness  whereof,  they  have  hereunto  interchangeably  set  their  hands 
and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

.TAS.  REESiDE. 
Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered,  in  the  presence  of 
Wm.  H.  Dundas, 
W.  D.  Addison. 

Octobers,  1834. — No.  1215  reduced  to  1  w.  h.,  No.  1230  reduced  to  2 
w.  h.     Deduction  S3, 995,  from  15th  October,  1834.     One  month's  extra 

pay. 

February  25,  1833. — Contractor  directed  to  convey  the  mail  daily 
between  Bedford  and  Blair's  Gap,  and  to  be  allowed  pro  rata^  viz.: 
^2,911  72  from  day  of  ,   1833.     (See  Postmaster  General's 

decision.)     Above  order  rescinded  from  1st  December,  1833.     $2,911  72 
per  annum  to  be  deducted,  and  one  month's  extra  pay  allowed. 


[  Doc.  No.  72.  ] 

I  do  certify,  that  James  Clark,  the  contractor  for  carrying  the  mail  from 
Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap,  has  duly  delivered  the  mail  at  Allum  Bank  post 
oflfice,  from  1st  January,  1832,  to  the  27th  April,  1832,  twice  a  week. 

THOMAS  VICKROV, 

Postmaster  at  Jillum  Bank. 

At  the  request  of  James  Clark,  contractor  for  carrying  the  mail  from 
Cumberland  to  Blair's  Gap,  certify  that  he  has  duly  delivered  the  mail  at 
Bedford,  Pennsylvania,  post  office,  from  1st  January,  1832,  to  27th  April, 
1832,  once  a  week. 

J.  H.  HOFINS, 

Postmaster,  Bedford,  Pa. 

Contract  paid  ij5275  per  year  for  both  Routes,  viz.:  No.  1,215  and  1,230. 
Entitled  to  one  month  extra  pay. 

\ 


S17  C  S6  ] 

[  Doc.  No.  73.  ] 

February  14,  1833. 

Sir:  The  citizens  of  Bedford,  Pennsylvania,  desire  that  a  daily  mail  be 
run  between  Bedford  and  HoUidaysburg.  The  latter  being  a  place  of 
great  importance^  being  at  the  junction  of  the  Pennsylvania  canal  and  rail- 
road,and  an  intercourse  of  communication  very  great  between  the  two  points, 
I  will  agree  to  perform  the  service  for  a  pro  rata  allowance,  and  put  the 
arrangement  into  effect  in  ten  days. 

Very  respectfully,  &c., 

JAMES  REESIDE. 
Hon.  W.  T.  Barry, 

Postmaster  General. 

No.  1215,  Pennsylvania.  James  Reeside  proposes  to  run  daily  for  pro 
ra/«;  Postmaster  General  says  within  "  granted.''  James  Reeside  written 
to,  25th  February,  1833. 


[Doc.  No.  74.] 

November  18,  1834. 

JOHN  PINDLEY,    POSMASTER,  CHAMBERSBURG. 

Question  1 .     How  long  have  you  been  postmaster  at  this  place.^ 

Answer  1.     From  1st  April,  1829;  and  from  that  time  I  have  attended  in 
person  night  and  day,  except  a  short  time  when  I  was  sick. 

Question  2.     Since  1st  January,  1832,  what  mails  have  been  carried  be- 
tween Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg?  ,rv* 

Answer  2.  The  Philadelphia  mail,  which  comes  in  the  fast  line,  and  no 
other.     It  is  opened  in  my  office  for  distribution. 

Question  3.  What  other  mail  comes  through  this  from  Philadelphia, 
on  the  direct  road  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg? 

Answer  3.  The  w.-iy  mail  in  the  Telegraph  linc.'^There  is  no  other,  nor 
has  there  been  since  1832.  There  are  three  portmanteaus,  one  in  the  fast 
line,  and  two  in  the  Telegraph,  which  are  distributed  in  my  office,  and  so 
from  Pittsburg.  There  are  canvas  bags  pass  through,  directed  to  Pitts- 
burg and  other  places,  which  are  not  opened  here;  some  directed  to  this 
place  are  opened. 

Question  4.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  an  express  mail  run  by  .Tames 
Reeside,  at  any  time,  in  addition  to  the  above,  between  Philadelphia  and 
Pittsburg,  since  1st  January,  1832? 

Answer  4.  It  is  new  to  me.  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  hearing  of 
any  such  thing. 

Question  5.  At  what  time  does  the  fast  line  from  Philadelphia  arrive  here? 

Answer  5.  When  it  first  ran  it  came  here  about  10  o'clock  in  the  evening. 
It  was  then  changed,  and  arrives  from  4  to  8  in  the  morning. 

Question  6.  At  what  time  does  the  mail  from  Baltimore  arrive,  since  Is. 
January,  1832? 

Answer  6.  I  am  not  certain  as  to  the  arrivals  in  1832;  but  from  1st  o 
1833  it  has  averaged  11  o'clock  at  night,  or  over;  sometimes  coming  be> 
fore;  once  it  came  at  9,  and  has  been  as  late  as  2  in  the  morning;  frequently 
it  i»  1  in  the  morning. 

28  JOHN  FINDLAY. 


[  86  ]  218 

[Doc.  No.  75.] 

Washington,  December  4,  1834. 

John  S.  Skinner,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 
several  interrogatories: 

Question  1 .  How  long  have  you  been  postmaster  at  Baltimore? 

Answer  1.   Since  1S16. 

Question  2.  What  was  the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  mail  from  Balti- 
more to  Chambersburg  during  the  year  1831? 

Answer  2.  1  cannot  recollect.  My  chief  clerk,  John  Smith,  can  give 
rtetter  information  on  this  point,  and  others  of  a  similar  nature,  than  I  can, 
especially  if  he  had  his  books  and  papers  with  him. 

Question  .3.  Arc  you  officially  advised  by  the  department  of  the  times 
that  the  several  mails  coming  to  and  going  from  your  office  ought  to  arrive 
and  depart? 

Answer  3.  In  special  cases  such  information  has  been  given;  but  no 
regular  schedule  of  that  sort,  embracing  all  the  mails,  has  been  at  any  time 
supplied,  that  deponent  recollects;  and  he  believes  that  his  correspondence 
with  the  department  will  show  that  the  expediency  of  such  schedules  has 
been  suggested.  The  system,  however,  of  full  monthly  reports,  as  now 
made,  of  the  actual  time  of  the  arrival  and  departure  of  the  principal  mails, 
may  supply  the  necessary  information  to  the  department,  and  so  far  super- 
sede the  necessit}'  of  exact  instruction  to  the  postmasters  of  the  contract  time 
of  such  mails. 

J.   S.  SKINNER. 


[Doc.  No.  76.] 

Philadelphia,  November  13,  1834- 

George  Carter,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respect- 
ive interrogatories,  as  follow: 

Question.  Were  you  at  the  lettings  of  the  mail  at  Washington  city  i^ 
the  fall  of  1831?  If  so,  were  you  present  when  the  route  from  Hagerstowii 
to  McConnellsburgh  was  struck  oflf  to  James  Rceside? 

Answer.  I  was  there,  but  left  the  city  before  the  routes  were  struck  off; 
being  an  agent  for  Mr.  Reeside  I  had  to  leave  (here. 

Question.   Do  you  know  at  what  sum  he  took  that  route? 

Answer.  Forty  dollars.  I  saw  the  contract  after  it  was  executed;  Ree- 
side settled  with  the  western  company  at  forty  dollars;  the  settlement  ended 
31st  March,  1832,  Reeside  told  me  and  the  company  that  he  had  it  raised 
to  $1,400;  and  the  next  quarter,  ending  30th  June,  he  settled  with  them  for 
the  Si, 400. 

Question.  Have  you  at  any  time  he^rd  Mr.  Reeside  say  why  he  took 
that  route  at  the  forty  dollars? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  did;  he  said  it  was  the  first  route  he  ever  had  carried 
a  mail  on,  and  was  determined  to  have  it  if  he  carried  it  for  nothing. 

Question.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  the  means  by  which  Mr.  Reeaidc 
obtained  his  extra  allowances,  either  from  your  own  knowledge  or  from 
what  he  has  told  you  at  any  time,  on  any  route? 

AQSwer.  I  do  not. 


219  [86  ] 

Question.  How  were  the  mails  carried  from  this  to  Pittsburg  during 
the  year  1S32? 

Answer.  There  was  one  mail,  "the  Good  Intent,"  left  here  daily  at 
eight  o'clock  A.  M.,  and  was  to  go  through  in  fifty-two  hours.  It  seldom 
did  so;  the  time  was  too  short.  There  was  the  ♦*  Telegraph,"  which  left, 
I  think,  at  two  in  the  morning,  carried  the  way  mail  and  sometimes  the 
newspaper  bags;  there  was  no  time  limited  that  I  know  of;  it  generally 
went  through  in  three  days,  and  ran  whether  there  were  passengers  or  not, 
winter  and  summer. 

Question,  Did  the  rapid  mail  generally  carry  a  full  freight  of  passengers 
if  they  oflered? 

Answer.  Yes;  six  was  the  limit,  and  I  have  known  eight  or  nine  pas« 
sengers  carried  in  it.  The  mail  was  heavy  but  one  day  in  the  week,  Sunday, 
but  they  could  always  carry  six  passengers.  The  mails  from  the  west  this 
way  were  never  heavy. 

Question.  Were  there  generally  a  full  freight  of  passengers  on  both  lines.^ 

Answer.   Yes,  except  in  the  summer  of  1832,  when  the  cholera  was  here. 

Question,  Did  you  superintend  the  route  from  Chambersburg  to  Balti* 
more  during  1832? 

Answer.   No,  I  did  not. 

Question.  Do  you  know  at  what  time  the  mails  left  Baltimore  and  ar- 
rived at  Chambersburg,  in  1S32. 

Answer.  At  one  time  it  left  Baltimore  at  seven  in  the  morning,  and  reach- 
ed Chambersburg  in  about  twelve  hours.  The  fast  Philadelphia  line  was 
changed,  and  then  the  Baltimore  was  changed  to  the  evening,  so  as  to  con- 
nect with  the  fast  line  at  Chambersburg. 

Question.  Do  you  know  other  matter  or  thing  connected  with  the  con- 
duct of  the  Post  Office  Department,  and  which  is  important  in  the  present 
inquiry? 

Answer.  There  is  a  transaction  in  which  I  was  personally  concerned 
which  I  consider  so.  I  contracted  to  carry  the  mail  from  this  city  to  Ma- 
nayunk  on  route  1038  from  1st  January,  1832,  to  31st  December,  1835, 
twice  a  day  in  stages,  at  450  dollars  per  year,  and  continued  to  carry  it  until 
the  8th  July,  1833. 

The  route  originally  extended  from  Philadelphia  to  Norristown;  and  when 
I  took  it,  it  was  curtailed  so  as  to  run  only  to  Manayunk.  Peters,  who 
transferred  the  route  to  me,  continued  on  another  route  to  run  from  Phila- 
delphia to  Norristown.  On  the  1st  of  January,  1833,  Reeside  set  up  an 
opposition  line  against  me.  On  the  1st  of  March  following  lleeside  got  a 
contract  to  run  from  Philadelphia,  through  Manayunk,  to  Norristown  and 
Bridge  Port. 

On  the  6th  July  following  my  contract  was  superseded  by  this  contract 
with  Reeside,  and  I  was  ordered  by  the  department  to  discontinue  mine. 

This  transaction  will  appear  from  the  original  letters  and  papers  here  ex- 
hibited.    Witness  then  exhibited  certain  papers  marked. 

Reeajde  was  at  that  time  my  personal  enemy,  and  I  believe  his  object  in 
getting  that  contract  was  to  break  me  down;  I  infer  this  from  a  letter  which 
There  exhibit,  and  from  divers  other  information.  I  suffered  great  indivi- 
dual loss  from  this  whole  business,  and  was  reduced  to  poverty  by  it. 

I  had  another  route  as  part  contractor  from  this  city  to  Easton.  Samuel 
and  William  SUouse  and  James  Reeside  were  my  partners;  it  began  1st 


I  86  ]  220 

January,  1832.  Reeside  sold  out  to  Jacob  Peters  for  2200  dollars,  I  think, 
and  afterwards  sent  me  word  by  John  Sturdevant  that  I  must  sell  my  stock  to 
Peters  for  1 600  dolhirs,  or  be  run  off  the  road;  and  that  he  had  Major  Barry's 
orders  to  do  so.  I  had  been  offered  1800  dollars  by  Mr.  Shouse  for  my 
Stock.  I  was  prepared  to  go  to  Washington  to  see  Major  Barry  about  this 
matter,  and  whether  he  had  authorized  Reeside  to  act  in  such  away  towards 
me.  Reeside  took  a  writ,  in  the  name  of  the  western  company,  and  had  me 
arrested,  and  demanded  40,000  dollars  bail.  I  with  difficulty  obtained  and 
procured  one  of  the  company  to  sign  my  bond,  and  my  security  was  ac- 
cepted. This  prevented  me  from  going  to  Washington.  This  suit  was 
submitted  to  our  lawyers,  and  on  the  whole  being  investigated  I  brought  the 
company  in  debt  1090  dollars. 

While  this  suit  was  pending  I  sold  out  to  Peters  for  the  160O  dollars, 
which  was  a  great  loss  to  me.  I  suffered  in  all  at  least  3000  doUnrs  loss  in 
consequence  of  those  proceedings. 

Question.  Did  you  superintend  the  route  from  Blair's  Gap  to  Cumberland, 
or  do  you  know  how  that  mail  was  carried,  and  by  whom? 

Answer.  1  did  not  superintend  the  route;  John  W.  Weaver  carried  the 
mail  for  Reeside.  It  was  carried  on  horseback  from  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land, and  in  a  two  horse  carriage  from  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap,  in  1832;  I 
was  there  in  Bedford  often  superintending,  the  Pittsburg  route,  and  saw  how 
this  mail  was  carried. 

GEO.  CARTER.^ 


[For  Document  77,  see  Appendix.] 


[Doc.  No.  78.] 

WILLIAM  THOMPSON. 

Question  I.     How  long  have  you  been  agent  for  the  western  company? 

Answer  1.     I  have  been  in  their  employment  about  eight  years. 

Question  2.  Can  you  tell  how  many  lines  of  mail  stages  there  were  ift. 
1831,  and  how  they  ran  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg? 

Answer  2.  There  was  but  one  daily  from  1st  January,  1S31,  to  Isfe 
April,  1831.  Then  there  was  an  additional  daily  line  called  the  "  Good 
Intent,"  which  continues  until  the  present  time.  From  1st  April,  1831,. 
the  average  was  about  sixty  hours  from  Philadelphia  to  Pitisburg,  for  the 
fast  line.  The  slow  line  most  of  the  time  takes  three  days  and  a  half,  car- 
rying the  way  mail.  There  has  been  no  permanent  alteration  in  the  ex- 
pedition of  the  fast  line  since  1st  April,  1831.  Sometimes  it  ran  through 
in  less  time  than  others.  The  times  of  its  setting  out  from  Philadelphia, 
was  changed  from  two  or  three  in  the  morning  to  eight,  and  there  is  a  cor- 
responding change  in  its  arrival  at  Pittsburg. 

Question  3.     How  many  passengers  were  carried  in  the  fast  line? 

Answer  3.  It  is  now  limited  to  seven;  in  1831  it  was  limited  to  six,,, 
and  continued  so  for  some  considerable  time.  We  never  take  more  than 
seven  now,  unless  under  special  circumstances. 

Question  4,     Have  you  always  been  able  to  take  six  passengers?,! 

Answer  4.     No;  it  has  happened  sometimes  that  the  mails  were  so  large 


221       •  r  8?  j 

we  were  not  able  to  take  any  thing  but  the  mails.  In  1832  the  mails  were 
the  heaviest;  once  a  week  frequently  it  so  happened.  Sometimes  it  would 
be  so  twice  a  week. 

Question  5.  Are  you  able  from  your  books  to  designate  at  what  time  it 
was  you  were  not  able  to  carry  passengers? 

Answer  5.  In  the  year  1832  I  find  IS  blank  trips,  most  of  them  from 
Sst  October  to  31st  December.  In  the  same  year  there  were  fifty-eight 
trips  of  not  more  than  one  or  two  passengers;  some  of  them  were  way 
passengers.  We  always  carried  passengers  through  in  preference  to  way 
passengers. 

Question  6.  Did  those  trips  occur  at  periodical  times  when  the  mails 
were  once  a  week  always  heavy? 

Answer  G.  The  heavy  mails  were  oa  Sunday.  The  1st  and  2d  January, 
1832,  we  carried  no  passengers,  3d  light,  7th  but  one  passenger,  Sth  two, 
9th  and  11th  two,  12th  one,  13lh  blank,  IGth  blank,  19th  blank,  22d  blank, 
23d,  24!h,  and  25th  light,  26th  and  27lh  blank. — In  October,  1832:  1st 
light,  (31  through);  no  blanks  in  this  month,  nor  freights  of  less  than  three 
passengers. — In  November,  1832:  19th  blank,  KSth  three  passengers;  23d. 
two  passengers,  24th  one,  other  days  of  this  week  full,  26th  one,  29th  none, 
except  free  passenger,  an  agent,  30th  two  through  and  one  way  passenger. — 
In  December:  3d  blank,  6lh  two,  9th  two,  10th  none,  eleventh  two,  13th 
two,  17lh  none,  24th  none,  29th  two,  3Ist  none. — 1S33:  2d  January 
two,  8th  two,  12th  two,  14th  one,  15th  and  16lh  two,  25th. two,  28th  two; 
February  2d  one,  9th  two,  16th  two,  23d  two;  March  3d  none,  and  con- 
tinued to  run  full  from  that  time. — 1831 :  October  20th  two  passengers;  this 
is  the  only  trip  in  the  month  of  less  than  three  passengers,  and  but  one  trip 
of  three,  26th  October. — November  13ih  blank,  14th  two,  15tii  blank,  20th 
two,  one  through, and  one  way,  27th  iwo. — December  Sth  two,  6th  one,  8th 
two,  13th  one,  16th  one,  17lh  one,  ISth  and  20th  two,  23d  one,  28th  one, 
29th  blank. 

Question  7.  Did  you  any  time  send  any  part  of  the  mail  through  from 
Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg  by  any  other  than  your  rapid  line? 

Answer  7.  I  never  knew  any  port  of  the  mail  through  sent  by  any  other 
than  the  fast  line.     We  sent  the  way  mail  by  the  other  line. 

Question  8.  Were  you  present  at  the  time  James  Reeside  settled  with 
the  company  for  the  extra  allowance  of  ;^l(),000? 

Answer  8.     I  was  at  the  meeting,  but  not  at  the  settlement.     I  was  not 
present  when  any  thing  was  said  about  it,  and  know  nothing  concerning  it 
Question  9.      Whsn  the   fast   mail  was  put  on  in  April,  1831,  was  there 
a  great  increase  in  the  mail  as  to  weight? 

Answer  9.  The  mail  was  heavy  when  the  speed  was  increased,  ft  in- 
creased cowsiderably  during  1832;  and  about  January,  1833,  it  came  dowa 
to  about  what  it  was  in  1831. 

WM.  P.  THOiVlPSON. 


Inlerrogalorles  to  be  propounded  to  William  Thompson  by  the  commis- 
sioners named  in  the  annexed  commission: 

Interrogatory  1.  Can  you  state  from  books,  or  otherwise,  the  number  of 
passengers,  each  day, in  the  "Good  Inlent"  or  rapid  line  from  Philadelphia 
to  Pittsburg,  westward,  from  1st  April  to  1st  July,  1832?  And  the  number 
each  day,  eastward,    in  the  same  line  and  durint^  the  same  time?    If  bo. 


[  86  ]  222 

give  the  whole,  cle  die  in  diem,  and  then  the  whole    number  each  way 
to   wit:     1st.  The  number  of  passengers   westward.     2d.  The  number  of 
passengers  eastward. 

Interrogatory  2.  In  a  former  deposition  of  witness  he  has  staled  that 
there  were,  in  the  year  1S32  eighteen  blank  trips.  How  many  of  these 
were  before,  and  how  many  after  1st  April,  1832? 

Interrogatory  3.  Witness  also  stated  in  his  former  deposition  that  there 
were  fifty-eight  trips  in  the  year  1832,  with  not  more  than  two  passen- 
gers. Were  the  eighteen  blank  trips  included  in  the  fifly-eight  light  trips? 
and  how  many  of  those  light  trips  were  before  and  how  many  after  the  Jst 
of  April,  1832? 

Attest:  MW.  ST.  CLAIR  CLARKE, 

Secretary  » 
Washington,  December  23,  1824. 


In  pursuance  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  us  by  the  annexed 
commission,  we.  Jasper  E.  Brady  and  Thomas  Hartley  Crawford,  the  com- 
missioners named  therein,  proceeded  on  this  twenty-ninth  day  of  December, 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-four,  to  take  the  following  depd- 
«ition  of  William  P.  Thompson,  which  we  reduced  to  writing, and  herewith 
return  to  the  honorable  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
on  the  Post  Office  Department,  under  our  hands  and  seals.  To  the  first 
interrogatory  the  witness  answers:  I  cannot  state  from  the  books  in  my 
possession  what  number  of  passengers  were  carried  in  the  Good  Intent  line 
from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  or  from  Pittsburg  to  Philadelphia,  from  the 
1st  of  April  to  1st  of  July,  183;}.  I  have  not  in  my  possession  the  way- 
bills sent  from  Philadelphia  to  Lancaster,  and  from  Lancaster  to  Chambers- 
burg;  or  from  Pittsburg  to  Chambershurg;  therefore  I  cannot  designate  by 
my  books  the  passengers  trom  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg  from  those  who 
started  from  Chambershurg,  or  from  any  other  point. 

To  the  second  interrogatory  he  answers  as  follows:  Of  the  blank  trips  men- 
tioned in  1832,  seven  were  before  the  1st  of  April,  tb.e  balance  after  that  time. 

To  the  third  interrogatory  he  answers  as  follows:  The  eighteen  blank  trips 
mentioned  in  1832  were  not  included  in  the  fifty-eight  light  trips.  Of  the 
fifty-eight  light  trips  nineteen  were  before  and  thirty-nine  after  the;  1st  of 
April. 

William  P.  Thompson,  of  the  borough  of  Chambershurg,  Pennsylvania, 
was  duly  sworn  to  the  truth  of  the  facts  set  forth  in  the  within  deposition. 

WM.  P.  THOMPSON. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  the  29th  December,  1834,  before  us. 

JASPER  E.  BRADY. 

T.  HARTLEY  CRAWFORD. 

We  return  to  the  honorable  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  on  the  Post  Office  Department  the  commission  transmitted  to  us, 
with  ihe  deposition  of  William  P.  Thompson  taken  under  it. 

Witness  our  hands  and  .seals,  the  twenty-ninth  day  of  December,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  .ind  thirty-four. 

JASPER  E.  BRADY.  [l.  s.] 

T.  HARTLEY  CRAWFORD,     [l.  s. 


•223 


C  86] 


Washington,  January  5,  1835. 
Gentlemen:  I  have  been  directed  by  the  committee  to  return  you  the 
commission  under  which  you  have  heretofore  acted,  and  to  request  that  you 
will  perform  the  additional  duties  asked  of  you  as  soon  as  po^ssible. 

Ordered,  That  the  commission  executed  by  Jasper  E.  Brady  and  Thomas 
Hartley  Crawford,  esquires,  of  Chambersburg,  be  returned  to  their,  with  di- 
rections to  re  examine  the  witness,  William  P.  Thompson,  on  the  first  in- 
terrogatory, and  request  him  to  state  the  number  of  passengers  westward, 
and  the  number  of  passengers  eastward,  in  the  "  Good  Intent"  line,  each 
day,  from  the  1st  of  April  to  the  1st  of  July,  1832,  without  regard  to  the 
fact  whether  they  went  through  from  city  to  city  or  not;  request  him  also 
to  bring  the  book  before  them,  and  show  how  he  ascertained  the  number  of 
blank  trips  and  the  number  of  light  trips  for  the  year  1832;  and  direct  him 
by  a  similar  process  to  show,  as  nearly  as  he  can,  the  number  of  passengers 
each  way,  in  that  line,  on  each  day  between  the  said  1st  of  April  and  1st 
of  July,  1832. 

Attest: 

MW.  ST.  CLAIR  CLARKE,  Secretary, 
To  Jasper  E.  Bradt,  and 

Thomas  Hartley  Crawford,  Esqs., 

Chambersburgf  Pennsylvania. 


A. 

The  following  is  a  statement  of  the  number  of  Passengers  in  Good 
Intent  Line,  westward  and  eastward,  frornChambersburg,  from  the 
1st  of  April  to  the  \st  of  July,  1832. 


Date  1832. 

Passengers  from  Cham- 
bersburg, westward. 

Date  1832. 

Passengers  from  Cham- 
bersburg, eastward. 

April    1 
2 

6 
6 

April    1 
2 

6 
3 

3 

1 

3 

3 

4 

0 

4 

41 

5 

3 

5 

4 

6 

4 

6 

7 

7 

.       6 

7 

7 

8 

5 

8 

6 

9 

2 

9 

4 

10 

2 

10 

5 

11 

1 

11 

2 

12 

5 

12 

6 

13 

6 

13 

5 

14 

2 

14 

7 

15 

6 

15 

3 

16 

5 

16 

2 

17 

6 

17 

5 

18 

2 

18 

6 

19 

5 

19 

8 

^-           20 

6 

20 

6 

86  ] 

Q24 

, 

Statement — Continued. 

Date  1832. 

Passengers  from  Cham- 

Date  1832. 

Passengers  from  Cham- 

bersburg,  westward. 

bersburg,  eastward. 

21 

4 

21 

4 

22 

6 

22 

4 

23 

6 

23 

5 

24 

5 

24 

7 

25 

6 

25 

S 

26 

3 

26 

S 

27 

6 

27 

6 

28 

5 

28 

6 

29 

5 

29 

1 

30 

2 

30 

6 

May     1 

8 

May     1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

4 

3 

5 

3 

6 

4 

6 

4 

5 

5 

4 

5 

5 

6 

3 

6 

6 

7 

2 

.  7 

I 

8 

S 

8 

3 

9 

3 

9 

7 

10 

5 

10 

7 

11 

2 

11 

1 

12 

4 

12 

3 

13 

2 

13 

6 

14 

0 

14 

7 

15 

2 

15 

6 

16 

5 

16 

3 

17 

6 

17 

3 

IS 

1 

IS 

3 

19 

0 

19 

7 

20 

4 

20 

7 

21 

3 

21 

4 

22 

5 

23 

3 

23 

3 

23 

7 

24 

4 

24 

8 

25 

6 

25 

3 

26 

2 

26 

4 

27 

5 

27 

6 

28 

1 

2S 

7^ 

29 

1 

29 

2 

30 

2 

30 

1 

31 

8 

31 

0 

Tune     1 

4 

June     1 

6 

2 

4 

2 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

4 

6 

4        ' 

I 

225 

Statement — Continued. 


[86] 


Date  1832. 

Passengers  from  Cham- 

Date  1832. 

Passengers  from  Cham- 

bersburg,  westward. 

bersburg,  eastward. 

5 

3 

5 

2 

6 

2 

6 

4 

7 

7 

7 

1 

8 

7 

8 

8 

9 

9 

9 

4h 

10 

8 

10 

5i 

11 

4 

11 

2 

12 

8 

12 

4 

13 

0 

13 

5 

14 

4 

14 

2i 

15 

1 

15 

0 

16 

5 

16 

5 

17 

1 

17 

4 

18 

2 

IS 

2 

19 

0 

19 

4 

20 

7 

20 

2 

21 

3 

21 

6 

22 

1 

22 

5 

23 

2 

23 

0 

24 

2 

24 

0 

25 

1 

25 

1 

26 

0 

26 

7 

27 

I 

27 

7 

28 

7i 

28 

10 

29 

51 

29 

4 

30 

4§ 

30 

5 

Total  westward 

337§ 

Total  eastward 

397i 

JASPER  E.  BRADY, 

T.  HARTLEY  CRAWFORD. 

In  pursuance  of  the  power  and  authority  vested  in  us  by  the  annexed 
commission,  we,  Jasper  E.  Brady  and  Thomas  Hartley  Crawford,  the  com- 
missioners therein  named,  caused  Mr.  William  P.  Thompson  to  appear 
again  before  us  on  the  tenth  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  thirty-five,  and  in  pursuance  of  the  within  order  of  the  honorable  the 
Committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  Post  Ofiice  Department, 
proceeded  to  examine  him  further  on  the  first  interrogatory;  in  answer  to 
which  he  says  that  the  annexed  paper  marked  (A),  and  identified  by  the 
signatures  of  Jasper  E.  Brady  and  Thomas  Hartley  Crawford,  contains  a 
true  daily  statement  of  the  number  of  passengers  who  left  Chambersburg  in 
the  stage  line  Good  Intent,  as  well  for  the  eastward  as  for  the  westward, 
amouniing  in  the  aggregate  in  the  former  to  three  hundred  and  ninety-seven 
and  a  quarter,  and  in  the  latter  to  three  hundred  and  thirty-seven  and  one 
29 


[86] 


226 


half,  betwesn  the  first  day  of  April  and  the  first  day  of  July,  one  thousand 
eight  huiKlred  and  thirty-two.  That  deponent  was  enabled  to  ascertain 
these  facts,  as  well  as  the  number  of  the  light  and  blank  trips  for  the  year 
IS32,  by  reference  to  two  daily  record  books  kept  by  hixTi,  as  a  clerk  in  the 
stage  office  at  Chnmbersburg,  of  those  who  travelled  in  the  said  line  from 
Chambersburg.  That  deponent  states  that  the  number  of  blank  trips  in  the 
year  1832  were  twenty  instead  of  eighteen,  two  having  been  overlooked  in 
the  former  examination.  That  the  two  blank  trips  heretofore  omitted, 
were  on  the  2Gth  and  27th  days  of  January,  1832,  and  are  included  in  the 
seven  mentioned  in  his  former  deposition  as  occurring  before  the  1st  day  of 
April.  WM.  P.  THOMPSON. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  us  the  lOth  day  of  January,  A.  D,  1835. 

JASPER  E,  BRADY. 

T.  HARTLEY  CRAWFORD. 

[Doc.  No.  79.] 

December  23,  1834. 

John  H.  Foster,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  re- 
spective interrogatories: 

Question  1.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  opportunities  have  you  had 
of  observing  the  passing  and  repassing  of  ihe  mails  between  Philadelphia 
and  Pittsburg,  and  for  what  length  of  time  have  you  observed  them? 

Answer  1.  I  reside  now,  and  have  done  so  for  two  years,  in  Chambers- 
burgj  Pennsylvania;  six  months  before  that  I  resided  in  Washington, 
Pennsylvania,  on  the  Wheeling  road:  previous  to  that  I  resided  for  many 
years  in  Lancaster  city.  I  was  employed  as  a  driver  on  the  mail  line 
between  Lancaster  and  Harrisburg  previous  to  the  last  two  years  and 
a  half.  Mr.  John  Tomlinson  and  Samuel  Slaymaker  were  the  first  contract- 
ors: after  they  died  1  continued  to  drive  on  the  same  line.  I  continued  for 
some  time  on  the  same  route  after  Mr.  Reeside  became  a  contractor:  I  have 
handled  mails  pretty  much  since  1S14. 

Question  2.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  a  great' increase  of  mail  matter 
since  the  year  1S30?  If  so,  state  when  and  to  what  extent  this  increase 
was,  and  how  it  occurred. 

Answer  2.  Ever  since  I  have  been  acquainted  with  the  line,  the  mails 
have  been  increasing. 

Question  3.  Do  you  know  of  any  sudden  or  extraordmary  increase  since 
1830? 

Answer  3.     No,  no  sudden  increase. 

Question  4.  How  was  the  weight  of  the  mails  in  1832,  compared  with 
the  mails  in  1S30  and  1S33? 

Answer  4.  I  was  in  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  in  the  summer  of  1832; 
the  mails  had  increased  that  year  compared  with  1S30,  and  they  fell  off  again 
in  1833.  The  mails  now  run  about  as  heavy  as  in  1833,  but  I  think  the 
mails  are  not  so  heavy  as  in  1832. 

Question  5.  How  have  you  been  employed  for  the  last  two  years  and  a 
half,  or  since  you  went  to  live  at  Washington,  Pennsylvania? 

Answer  5.  1  have  been  employed  as  agent,  the  first  6  months  for  Reeside, 
Slaymaker  and  Co.  Since  January,  1833.  for  Slaymaker  &  Co.  The  part- 
ners are  Tomlinson,  Miller,  Downing,  and  others. 

Question  6.  Can  you  state  at  what  particular  time,  in  1832,  the  mails  be* 
came  so  heavy? 

Answer  6.  They  had  been  growi.^g  heavier  for  som^  time; "  ,t!  lathe 


227  [  86  ] 

latter  part  of  1832  they  were  so  heavy  as  to  prevent  passengers  from  going 
once  a  week;  sometimes  twice.  The  Philadelphia  Sunday  mails  were  the 
heaviest.     This  was  in  the  '-Good  Intent"  or  <'Fast  line." 

The  Telegraph,  or  slow  line,  ran  at  the  same  time;  this  mail  was  not  so 
heavy. 

W'e  generally  carried  in  the  fast  line,  in  1832,  when  we  could,  six  pas- 
sengers; sometimes  teven. 

I  never  weighed  the  mails;  they  consisted  of  locked  leather  hags,  and 
Canvas  bags.  I  should  think  the  average  weight  of  these  Sunday  mails 
would  be  from  2,500  to  3,000  pounds. 

Question  7.  Do  you  know  what  occasioned  this  increase  of  the  mails  in  1833? 

Answer  7.   I  do  not.     It  appeared  to  be  a  regular  increase.     I  do  not  re- 
collect of  any  sudden  increase- 
Question  8.  Was  there  any  book  kept  in  which  the  daily  number  of  pas- 
sengers were  registered?     If  so,  have  you  got  it,  or  in  whose  custody  is  it? 

Answer  8.  There  were  books  kept:  Wm.  P.  Thompson  kept  books  of 
this  kind  in  Chambersburg.    I  never  kept  any. 

Question  9.  Do  you  know  any  thing  concerning  the  running  of  the  mail 
from  Bedford  to  Washington,  Pa.? 

Answer  9.  During  the  six  months  I  lived  at  Washington,  in  1832,  I  do. 
Part  of  the  time,  I  mean  after  I  first  went  there,  the  mails  ran  cfery  day* 
I  think  about  the  first  of  September,  1S32,  half  of  this  line  was  withdrawn, 
and  then  they  ran  the  coaches  every  other  day  until  I  came  away,  which  was, 
as  before  stated,  about  1st  January,  1833;  and  I  have  never  been  over  the 
road  but  once  since. 

JOHN  H.  FOSTER. 


December  24,  1S34. 

John  Foster,  being  again  called,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective 
jiterrogatories: 

Question  1.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  cost  of  stock  necessary  to  carry 
on  a  contract  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  in  four  horse  post  coache? 

Answer  1.  Yes. 

Question  2.  Can  you  state  what  would  be  about  the  difference  of  original 
cost  necessary  to  carry  the  mail  in  the  Glood  Intent,  or  fast  line,  and  the 
Telegraph,  or  slow  line,  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg? 

Answer  2.  As  the  two  lines  have  run  for  the  last  two  years,  we  have  the 
same  number  of  horses  and  coaches  on  both? 

Question  3.    How  is  it  as  to  wear  and  tear  of  horses  and  coaches? 

Answer  3.  The  fast  line  is  severer  on  horses  and  coaches  considerable;  I 
would  say  one-fourth  more,  perhaps  not  so  much.  The  original  cost  of 
horses  and  coaches  are  about  the  same. 

JOHN  H.  FOSTER. 


[Doc.  No.  80.] 
Washi.ngtox  Citv,  September  26,  183L 

We  will  agree  to  convey  the  mail  on  route  No.  1,031,  from  Philadelphia 
to  Pittsburg,  daily  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  agreeable  to  advertisement, 
for  the  yearly  compensation  of  seven  thousand  dollars. 


[  86  ]  228 

Or  we  will  make  the  following  improvements,  to  convey  two  daily  mails 
from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg: — First  mail  to  leave  Philadelphia  at  two 
o'clock  A.  M.  and  arrive  at  Pittsburgh  in  two  days  and  five  hours,  so  as  to 
arrive  in  Pittsburg  at  seven  o'clock  A.  M.,  and  extend  the  route  to 
Wheeling*  so  as  to  arrive,  including  route  1 170,  at  Wheeling  the  third  day 
by  nine  o'clock  P.  M.,  from  1st  April  to  1st  December;  and,  from  Ist 
December  to  1st  April,  to  Pittsburg  in  three  and  Wheeling  four  days;  and 
return  from  Wheeling  by  Washington,  Pittsburg,  and  Chambersburg,  to 
Philadelphia  within  the  same  time;  changing  the  mail  as  follows: — at 
Lancaster,  Harrisburg,  Chambersburg,  Bedford,  Sommersett,  Mount  Plea- 
sant, and  at  any  other  offce  that  is  or  may  be  established  on  the  route. 

2d.  The  second  mail  to  leave  Philadelphia  at  seven  o'clock  A.  M.,or 
immediately  after  the  arrival  of  the  New  York  mail,  and  arrive  in  Pittsburg 
m  three  days  and  five  hours,  so  as  to  arrive  in  Pittsbiirg  by  noon,  changing 
the  mail  at  all  the  way  offices  as  follows: — Buck  Tavern,  Spread  Eagle, 
Paoli,  Warren  Ts<1:arn,  Frasier,  West  Whiteland,  Downingiown,  Coates- 
ville,  Sadsbury,  Black  Horse,  Salisbury,  Williamstown,  Paradise,  Lan- 
caster, Mount  Joy,  Eliz:ibethtovvn,  Middletown,  Highspire,  Harrisburg, 
Hogestown,  Carlisle,  Stougbstown,  Shippensburg,  Greenvillage,  Chambers- 
burg, St.  Thomas,  Loudon,  McConnelisburg,  Licking  Creek,  Juniatta 
Crossings,  Bloody  Run,  Bedford,  Schellsburg,  Stoystown,  Laurel  Hill, 
Laughlinstown,  Legonier,  Youngstovvn,  Greensburg,  Adamsburg,  Stewarts- 
ville,  to  Pittsbur;^,  and  all  other  offices  that  be  established  on  said  road,  and 
back,  daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of 
twenty-seven  thousand  dollars. 

We  will  agree  to  carry  the  mail  on  route  No.  1,198,  from  Bedford  to 
Washington,  Pa.,  via  White  Horse,  Sommersett,  Donegall,  Mou>  t  Plea- 
sant, McKane's  Old  Stand,  Robslown,  Gambles,  and  Parkinson's  Ferry,  to 
Washington,  Pa.,  as  advertised,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of  twenty-nine 
hundred  dollars. 

We  agree  to  carry  the  mail  on  route  No.  1,197,  from  Mount  Pleasant  to 
Stewartsville,  daily,  and  back,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  for  the  yearly 
compensatipn  of  two  hundred  and  seventy-five  dollars. 

We  do  agree  to  carry  the  mail  on  route  No.  1,231,  from  Hagerstown  to 
McConnelisburg,  via  Welch  ran  and  Mercersburg,  as  advertised,  for  the 
yearly  compensation  of  forty  dollars.  Or  we  will  carry  the  same,  so  as  to 
connect  the  mail  at  each  place  with  the  great  eastern  and  western  mails, 
daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of  ninety-nine 
dollars  ninety-nine  dollars. t 

We  do  agree  to  carry  the  mail  from  Philadelphia  to  Lancaster,  on  route 
No.  1,098,  via  Blockley,  Haverford,  Newton  Square,  Edgemont,  West 
Chester,  Marshalton,  McWilliams,  Humphreyville,  Fountain  Lin,  Swan, 
Gap,  Arabella,  and  Strawsburg,  and  back,  daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches, 
for  the  yearly  compensation  of  eighteen  hundred  dollars  ± 

We  do  agree  to  carry  the  mail  on  route  No.  1,230,  from  Bedford,  Pa., 
to  Cumberland,  Md.,  three  times  a  week  in  coaches,  from  the  1st  of  April 

*  Including'  route  1,170,  which  route  is  incUuled  In  the  yearly  compensation  of  $27,000. 

I  He  says  he  me;mt  81,999. 

4  We  will  make  tlie  following'  improvements.by  connecting  this  mail  at  Lancaster  with  the 
York,  Baltimore,  and  Washington  City  mails,  and  tlie  great  we^tein  mail  at  Lancaster.  Th  s 
improvement  will  be  of  great  importance  to  tlie  counties  of  Delaware,  Chester,  and  Lancas- 
*^cr,  particularly  so  during  the  session  of  Congress  and  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania. 


229  [  86  ] 

to  the  1st  of  October,  and  once  a  week  on  horseback  from  the  1st  of  October 
to  the  1st  of  April,  so  as  to  connect  with  the  Winchester  mail  at  Cumber- 
land and  the  great  eastern  and  western  mail  at  Bedford,  which  is  much 
wanted  during  the  summer  season,  for  the  yearlj  compensation  of  thirteeni 
hundred  dollars. 

JAMES  REESIDE, 
SAMUEL  R.  SLAYMAKER, 
J.  TOMLINSON. 
To  the  Hon.  Wm.  T.  Barry, 

Postmaster  General. 


[Doc.  No.  81.] 

Washington,  July  12,  1832. 

Sir;  When  we  entered  into  contrast  with  you  to  run  two  daily  mails  be- 
tween Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg,  one  with  unexampled  rapidity,  and 
the  other  in  three  and  a  half  days,  we  had  no  idea  whatever  of  carry'ino-  the 
newspaper  mail  in  our  most  rapid  line,  nor  do  we  suppose  it  was  ever 
contemplated  by  the  deportment.  It  was  our  intention,  and  we  sn  express- 
ed it  in  all  our  conversation  with  you,  and  with  the  superintendent  of  mail 
contracts,  to  carry  the  principal  letter  mail  only  in  the  most  rapid  line,  not 
believing  it  practicable  to  carry  the  heavy  load  of  newspapers  sent  to  ihe 
west  with  sufficient  rapidity  to  reach  Pittsburg  in  the  shortest  time  specified. 
Indeed,  if  we  could  have  supposed  that  it  would  ever  become  necessary  to 
carry  the  newspaper  with  that  rapidity^  we  should  not  have  undertaken  it 
for  less  than  $15,000  a  year  beyond  what  we  now  receive;  but  experience 
soon  taught  us  that  great  complaints  were  made  against  the  department  and 
ourselves  when  the  newspapers  were  not  received  as  soon  as  the  letters,  and 
that  these  complaints  were  not  confined  to  Pittsburg,  but  extended  all  over 
the  west.  To  satisfy  the  public,  and  sustain  the  credit  of  both  the  depart- 
ment and  ourselves  as  its  servants,  we  made  the  experiment  of  trying  to 
carry  the  newspapers  with  our  most  rapid  line.  We  have  partially  suc- 
ceeded, but  with  very  great  loss.  For  three  days  in  the  week  we  are  com- 
pelled to  exclude  all  passengers,  to  the  loss  of  not  less  than  SlOO  a  day.  We 
are  willing  to  perform  our  contract  to  the  full  extent  of  its  meaning,  but  we 
must  relinquish  carrying  the  newspaper  mails  by  our  most  rapid  line,  unless 
we  can  in  part  be  remunerated  for  it.  If,  however,  the  Postmaster  Gene- 
ral is  willing  to  silence  the  public  clamor,  which  is  so  great  when  we  carry 
them  in  our  slow  line,  we  will  carry  all  the  newspaper  mails,  together 
with  the  letter  mail,  in  our  most  rapid  line  to  Pittsburg  and  Wheeling,  in 
the  shortest  time  specified  in  our  contract,  and  so  arrange  the  connexion  of 
the  Baltimore  mail  at  Chambersburg  with  our  swift  line,  as  to  carry  the 
newspaper,  as  well  as  letter  mail,  from  Baltimore  to  Pittsburg  in  two  days, 
for  the  additional  allowance  often  thousand  dollars  per  year,  from  the  1st  of 
April  last.  The  increased  expense  to  us  will  not  be  less  than  Sl5,000  a 
year,  and  for  our  own  credit,  and  the  credit  of  the  department,  we  will  make 
one  third  of  the  sacrifice,  and  perform  the  service  for  §10,000  a  year.  We 
would  gladly  do  it  for  a  less  sum  if  we  could  afford  it,  but  we  cannot,  and 
at  that  rate  our  sacrifice  will  be  as  much  as  we  can  bear.  It  would  be  much 
more  gratifying  to  us  if  the  public  would  be  satisfied  without  it;  but  thej- 


[  86  ]  230 

will  not,  and  our  own  feelings  will  not  suffer  us  to  perform  a  service  in 
which  we  cannot  give  satisfaction  to  the  public. 
Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servants, 

J  AS.  REESIDE, 
SAML.  R.  SLAYMAKER. 
To  the  Hon.  W.  T.  Barry, 

Postmaster  General. 

A  true  copy  from  the  original  on  file  in  ths  General  Post  Office. 

MVV.  ST.  CLAIR  CLARKE,  Secretary, 

(The  above  letter  is  marked  "  Granted.") 

[Doc.  No.  82.] 

JOHN     GRAHAM. 

Chambersbukg,  November  18,  1834. 

Question  1.  Have  you  an  interest  in  the  mail  route  from  Philadelphia 
to  Pittsburg;  and  if  so,    how  long  have  you  been  concerned? 

Answer  i.   I  have,  and  have  been  concerned,  I  think,  since  1828. 

Question  2.  Did  you  know  any  thing  of  the  extra  allowance  of  $10,000 
on  this  route,  prior  to  its  being  noticed  in  the  report  of  this  committee? 

Answer  2.  No,  I  did  not. 

Question  3.  Has  James  Reeslde  ever  settled  with  you  and  the  other  wes- 
tern partners  for  that  allowaiice;  and  if  he  has,  state  particularly  in  what 
manner  it  has  been  settled? 

Answer  3.   I  never  received  any  thing  but  my  share  of  the  regular  mail 

pay- 
Question  4.  What  arrangement  has  been  made,  or  what  settlement  had 

about  the  glO,000  extra  pay  at  any  time:   state  particularly  the  time,  place^ 

and  circumstances? 

Answer  4.  At  our  settlement  in  August  last,  at  the  Crossings,  Mr.  Ree- 
side  and  Slaymaker  requested  a  comnr.ittee  to  be  appointed  for  them  to  ex- 
plain to,  as  to  how  the  extra  pay  had  been  disposed  of — disinterested  men. 
I  do  not  i-ecollect  whether  two  or  three  were  appointed.  Mr.  McKee  and 
Mr.  McNair  were  two,  or  all  of  them.  They  reported  that  the  extra  pay 
had  been  used  for  the  interest  of  the  parties  concerned,  and  that  Reeslde 
ought  not  to  be  called  on  to  account  for  it. 

Question  5.  Were  any  members  of  the  company  permitted  to  be  present 
when  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  made  their  explanation  to  the  committee? 

Answer  5.   1  do  not  know.     I  think  not. 

Question  6.  Did  Reeside  or  Slaymaker  either  give  you  any  intimation  as 
to  the  use  which  had  been  made  of  that  money;  if  so,  state  it? 

Answer  6.  They  did.  They  said  they  were  at  great  expense  going  to 
Washington  and  travelling  about;  had  the  whole  charge  of  the  concern,  and 
if  any  difficulty  occurred  they  had  to  attend  ta  it;  and  there  was  some 
route  between  Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  on  which  they  had  been  charged 
with  extra  allowance,  but  which  they  never  had  received;  and  some  other 
charges  of  extra  allowances  which  they  had  not  received.  They  did  not 
state  what  had  been  done  with  those  extra  allowances,  but  that  the  $10,000 
was  in  part  to  cover  these  allowances  which  they  had  not  received,  and 
which  had  been  charged  to  them,  and  for  which  they  had  done  services,  but 
had  not  received  the  pay. 


231  C  86  ] 

Question  7."  Did  you  ever  ascertain  from  the  arbitralors  what  explanations 
had  been  made,  or  what  papers  had  been  shown  them,  by  Reeside  and  Slay- 
maker? 

Answer  7.   No,  I  never  did;  nor  did  I  inquire. 

Question  8.  Was  it  understood  that  the  statements  made  to  ihe  committee, 
and  their  proceedings,  except  their  award,  was  to  be  confidential? 

Answer  8.  Yes. 

Question  9.  Were  you  interested  in  the  route  from  Bedford  to  Washing- 
ton, Pa,,  since  1st  January,  1832? 

Answer  9.  I  was,  until  the  company  dissolved,  which  I  think  was  on 
1st  January,  1S33. 

Question  10.  For  how  much  did  Reeside  account  to  the  company  for  the 
transportation  during  the  year  1S32,  on  that  line? 

Answer  10.  I  cannot  tell. 

J.  GRAHAM. 


[  Doc.  No.  83.  ] 

November  19,  1S34. 

Dunning  R.  McNair,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 
respective  interrogatories: 

Question  1.  Were  you  one  of  the  arbitrators  or  committee  to  whom 
James  Reeside  and  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker,  and  their  partners  in  the  western 
stage  company  referred  the  question  respecting  the  extra  allowance  of  ten 
thousand  dollars  a  year,  made  to  them  on  the  route  from  Philadelphia  to 
Pittsburg?  And  if  so,  state  the  whole  of  the  circumstances. 

Answer  1.  I  was,  with  Mr.  McKee.  The  company  met  at  the  Crossings 
of  Juniatta  in  August  last,  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  quarterly  settlement; 
and  at  that  time  the  extra  allowances  were  talked  of.  Mr.  Reeside  and 
Slaymaker  introduced  it  themselves.  Mr.  McKee  and  myself  were  ap- 
pointed the  committee  to  hear  their  statement  of  the  receipt  and  expenditure 
<»f  those  allowances.  There  were  no  others  present  but  ourselves  and  Ree- 
side and  Slaymaker.  They  said  they  had  received  this  ten  thousand  dollars, 
extra  allowance,  for  which  they  said  they  had  rendered  extra  services  to  the 
company  suflBcient  for  the  portion  of  the  other  partners,  they  being  owners 
•of  about  three-fourths  of  the  stock.  Those  services  were  expenditure  of 
time  and  money,  on  which  they  based  their  claim.  At  first  I  think  they 
said  they  had  been  at  considerable  expense  in  getting  petitions,  and  other 
exertions  in  getting  the  allowance  raised  from  seven  thousand  to  twenty- 
five  thousand  dollars.  Their  time  in  going  to  Washington  and  their  ex- 
penses there  were  very  considerable.  They  did  not  say,  or  intimate,  that 
any  money  had  been  expended  to  procure  the  good  will  or  assistance  of  any 
one.  They  also  made  an  item  of  charge,  which  we  considered  fair,  for 
drawn  all  the  pay  at  Washington  and  paying  it  out  to  the  other  part- 
ners, for  which  they  had  never  received  any  compensation.  They  present- 
ed no  accounts  to  us.  I  made  from  their  representations  to  us  some  calcu- 
lations of  expenses:  we  estimated  that  the  other  partners  were  entitled  to 
about  one-fourth  of  the  extra  allowance;  and  that  Reeside  and  Slaymaker 
were  entitled  to  this  for  their  extra  trouble. 

Question  2.  Did  you  think  the  expense  and  time  of  Messrs.  Reeside  and 
Slaymaker,  in  obtaining  the  contract,  and  the  improvement  upon  the  con- 


f   86  ]  532 

tract,  and  their  other  extra  services,  was  fairly  worth  sixteen  thousand  six 
hundred  and  sixty -six  dollars,  the  aggregate  of  the  extra  allowance? 

Answer  2.  I  considered  the  benefit  derived  to  the  company  from  their 
exertions  in  procuring  the  contract  and  improving  it,  together  with  certain 
claims  of  Mr.  Reeside,  heretofore  presented  but  not  allowed,  were  equal  to 
the  proportion  due  to  the  other  partners. 

Question  3.  Were  those  claims  of  Mr.  Reeside  submitted  to  you  and  Mr^ 
McKee  to  award  upon  at  that  time? 

Answer  3.  They  were  spoken  of  at  that  time  as  a  charge  which  the  com- 
pany was  entitled  to  pay,  but  had  ROt  paid. 

Question  4.  Who  spoke  of  them?  Were  they  submitted  to  you  by  the 
company,  and  were  you  authorized  to  decide  upon  them  also? 

Answer  4.  At  the  time  of  our  appointment  those  claims  were  not  known 
by  tlie  company  as  a  part  of  our  action  on  the  extra  allowances,  nor  was  it 
noticed  in  our  report.  I  do  not  l^now  that  I  ever  named  them  to  any  of  the 
company  when  speaking  of  our  report.  Mr.  Reeside  got  our  report.  Those 
claims  were  named  to  us  by  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  after  our  appointment. 
They  were  shown  to  the  company  at  a  previous  settlement  at  Harris- 
burg.  Part  were  allowed  and  part  rejected.  Those  rejected  and  other  sums 
he  said  he  had  paid  were  the  items  spoken  of  by  Reeside  to  us.  He  showed 
us  nd  items  nor  account  at  this  time. 

The  transaction  between  himself  and  0.  B.  Brown  was  spoken  of  by 
Slaymaker  to  us  at  this  time;  but  he  said  nothing  more  than  what  was  con- 
tained in  his  deposition  taken  before  the  committee  of  the  Senate  last 
spring. 

D.  R.   McNAlR. 


[Doc.  No.  84.] 

CHAMBERSBUKa,  November  IS,  1834. 
John  McKee,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective 

interrogatories: 

Question  1.  Were  you  one  of  the  arbitrators  or  committee  to  whom 
James  Reeside  and  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker  and  their  partners  in  the  Western 
Stage  Company  referred  the  question  concerning  the  extra  allowance  of 
$10,000  a  year,  made  to  them  on  the  route  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg? 
And  if  so,  state  the  whole  of  the  circumstances. 

Answer  1.  After  the  usual  business  of  the  company,  at  a  quarterly  set- 
tlement, ending  SOth  June  last,  had  been  transacted,  at  the  Crossings  of  Ju- 
niatta,  Messrs.  Reeside  and  Slaymaker  appeared,  and  requested  that  a  commit- 
tee might  be  appointod  to  inquire  into  the  extra  allowance  as  reported  by 
the  Committee  of  the  Senate. 

The  company,  in  full  meeting,  called  on  Mr.  McNair  and  myself  to  be 
that  committee.  We  adjourned  to  hear  the  parties,  Reeside  and  Slaymaker. 
The  understanding  of  all  parties  was,  that  what  they  had  to  say  was  to  be  said 
to  us  in  private,  in  the  absence  of  the  other  partners.  Messrs.  Reeside  and 
Slaymaker  said  to  us  that  they  had  drawn  the  (810,000  a  year  for,  I  think, 
a  year  and  seven  months,  and  had  divided  it  equally  between  them;  that,  as 
•was  known  to  us,  they  owned  about  three  quarters  of  the  whole  stock;  that 
three  quarters  of  that  money  they  claimed  as  their  own;  as  to  the  residue, 

ly  explained  to  us  that  they  had  been  at  a  great  deal  of  trouble  and  a 


233  [  86  ] 

great  deal  of  expense  in  procuring  the  present  contract;  they  had  increased 
Ihe  speed  twenty-lour  hours,  and  put  on  a  second  daily  mail;  there  was  a 
number  of  expenses  which  tliey  had  never  broui>,ht  before  the  company,  ai 
a  company.     We  examined  tlieir  books,  and  found  it  to  be  so. 

They  stated  that  they  hod  been  at  trouble  and  expense  to  get  petitions 
along  this  line,  to  show  the  expediency  of  the  ailditional  speed  and  second 
line;  that  they  had  drawn  the  mail  pay  quarterly,  and  divided  it  out  to  the 
partners;  in  doing  this,  they  had  incurred  expenses  in  going  to  Washing- 
ton, for  wliich  they  had  made  no  charge;  that  they  were  at  considerable 
expense  in  Washington;  they  had  to  live  free  and  be  generous. 

Question  2.  Did  thsy  state  or  intimate  to  you  thai  they  had  paid,  given, 
or  lent  any  portion  of  this  money,  or  any  other  money,  to  any  person  or 
persons  in  the  department,  or  placed  it  in  such  situation  that  any  officer  or 
officers  in  the  department  received  it,  or  the  benefit  of  it? 

Answer  2.  I  asked  that  question  specially  of  Mr.  Slaymaker,  and  told 
him  that  he  was  suspected  of  so  doing.  He  declared  solemnly  there  never 
had  been  any  transaction  of  that  kind,  nor  any  thing  more  than  that  matter 
with  Mr.  Brown,  of  which  he  had  spoken  in  his  deposition  before  the 
Committee  of  the  Senate,  and  which  had  been  published.  1  did  not  speak 
to  Mr.  Reeside  about  if,  nor  did  he  say  any  tiling  to  me. 

I  viewed  it  as  a  business  transaction,  and  that  if  they  had  charged  four  or 
five  thousand  dollars  to  the  company  for  doing  their  business,  and  to  cover 
their  personal  expenses,  if  would  not  have  been  too  much. 

The  whole  amount  received  by  them  was  about  {516,600.  Reeside  and 
Slaymaker  were  owners  of  three-fourths  of  the  line,  and  of  course  were 
-entitled  to  three-fourths  of  the  money,  leaving  about  $4,000  to  come  to  the 
Other  partners.  This  sum  I  considered  them  as  paying  to  Reeside  and 
Slaymaker  for  doing  their  business. 

The  compensation  for  one  daily  line  had  been  $7,000.  Two  daily  lines 
were  now  run,  and  g25,000  were  paid.  The  speed  of  one  remained  the 
same;  the  other  had  been  expedited  to  run  in  two  days  and  a  half.  J  con- 
ceived that  the  western  owners,  by  losing  this  sum,  were  still  very  much 
heneftted  by  the  increased  ailovvance. 

Question  3,  Is  there  any  other  matter  or  thing  in  relation  to  the  present 
inquiries,  which  you  deem  of  importance  to  communicate?   If  so,  stale  it. 

Answer  3.   I  know  of  none. 

Question  4.  Are  you  now  a  partner  in  the  line  with  Mr.  Reeside? 

Answer  4.  I  own  Robvjrt  Stewart's  interest;  when  I  bought  his  real  estate, 
1  was  under  the  necessity  of  buying  that  with  it.  This  extra  allow- 
ance had  ceased  before  I  bought  my  interest. 

JNO.  McKEB^ 


[Doc.  No.  85.] 
NoS.  1,031,  1,170— $27,000,  .$6,750. 

This  contract,  made  the  fifteenth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  thirty-one,  between  James  Reeside,  of  Philadelphii, 
Samuel  R.  Slaymaker,  of  Lancaster,  and  Jesse  Tomlinson,  of  Philadelphia, 
contractors  for  carrying  the  mails  of  the  United  States,  ol  one  part,  and  th« 
iBostraaster  General  of  the  United  States  of  the  other  part,  witnesseth,  that 
30 


I  86  1  234 

the  said  parties  have  mutually  covenanteH  as  follows,  viz.:   The  said  con- 
tractors covenant  with  the  Postmaster  General: 

1.  To  carry  the  mail  of  the  United  States  from  Philadelphia  by  Buck  tavern, 
■  Spread  Eagle,  Paoli,  War  ren  tavern,  Frazer,  West  Whiteland,  Downing- 
town,  Coatsville,  Sadshnry,  Black  horse,  Salisbury,  VVilliamstown,  Para- 
dise, l^nncaster,  Mount  Joy,  Elizabelhtown,  Middletown,  Hijih  Spire, 
Harrishiirg,  Hogestosvn,  Carlisle,  Stonghtstown,  Shippensburgh,  Green 
village,  Chambersburgh,  St.  Thomas,  London,  McConnellsburgh,  Licking 
creek,  Junialta  Crossings,  Bloody  run,  Bedford,  Schellsburg,  Sloystown, 
Laurel  Hill,  Langhlinlown,  Ligonier,  Yonngstown,  Greensburg,  Adams- 
burg,  and  Stevvartsville,  to  Pittsburg,  and  back,  twice  a  day,  in  four  horse 
•post  coaches;  one  of  the  daily  mails  to  run  by  Bedford,  Somerset,  Mount 
Pleasant,  Turtle  creek,  to  Pittsburg,  and  back. 

No.  1,170.  From  Pittsburg  by  Harriottsville,  Cannonsburg,  Washing- 
ton. Claysville,  West  Alexandria,  and  Triadelphia,  Va.,  to  Wheeling,  and 
back,  daily,  in  four  horse  post  coaches.  The  1st  mail  to  be  changed  at 
each  county  town  through  which  it  passes;  the  2d  mail  at  every  office  on 
the  route;  and  to  furnish  armed  guards  for  the  whole,  when  required  by  the 
■department,  at  the  rate  of  six  thousand  seven  hundred  and  tifiy  dollars  for 
every  quarterof  a  year,  during  the  continuance  of  this  contract;  to  be  paid  in 
drafts  on  postmasters  on  the  route  above  mentioned,  or  inmoney,  at  the  option 
«f  the  Postmaster  General,  in  the  months  of  May,  August,  November,  and 
February.  -i 

2.  That  the  mails  shall  be  duly  delivered  at,  and  taken  from  each  post 
•office  now  established,  or  that  may  be  ^established  on  any  post  route  em- 
'ijraced  in  this  contract,  under  a  penalty  of  ten  dollars  for  each  offence;  and 
ti  like  penalty  shall  be  incurred  lor  each  ten  minutes  delay  in  the  delivery 
of  the  mail  after  the  lime  fixed  for  its  delivery  at  any  post  office  specified  in 
the  schedule  hereto  annexed;  and  it  is  also  agreed  that  the  Postmaster  Gene- 
ral may  alter  the  times  of  arrival  and  departure  fixed  by  said  schedule, 
-and  alter  the  route  (he  making  an  adequate  compensation  for  any  extra 
expense  which  may  be  occasioned  thereby);  and  the  Postmaster  General  re- 
serves the  right  of  annulling  this  contract,  in  case  the  contractors  do  not 
promptly  adopt  ihe  alteration  required. 

3.  If  the  delay  of  the  arrival  of  said  mail  continue  until  the  hour  for  the 
dep?rture  of  any  connecting  mail,  whereby  the  mails  destined  for  such 
connecting  mails  shall  lose  a  trip,  it  shall  be  considered  as  a  whole  trip  lost, 
and  a  forfeiture  of  one  hundred  dollars  shall  be  incurred;  and  a  failure  to 

.take  the  mail,  or  to  make  the  proper  exchange  of  mails  at  connecting  points, 
•shall  be  considered  a  whole  trip  lost;  and  for  any  delay  or  failure  equal  to  a 
trip  lost,  the  Postmaster  General  shall  have  full  power  to  annul  this  contract. 

4.  That  the  said  contractors  shall  be  answerable  for  the  persons  to  whom 
they  shall  commit  the  care  and  transportation  of  the  mail,  and  accountable- 
for  any  damages  which  may  be  sustained  through  their  unfaithfulness  or 
want  of  caie. 

5.  That  seven  minutes  after  the  delivery  of  the  mail  at  any  post  office 
on  the  aforesaid  route  not  named  in  the  annexed  schedule,  shall  be  allowed 
the  postmaster  for  opening  the  same,  and  making  up  another  mail  to  be  for- 
warded. 

6.  The  contractors  agree  to  discharge  any  driver  or  carrier  of  said  mail 
whenever  required  to  do  so  by  the  Postmaster  General. 

7. '"That  when  the  said  mail  goes  by  stage,  such  stage  shall  be  suitable 
for  the  comfortable  accommodation  of  at  least  seven  travellers;  and  the  mail 


235  [  86  3 

shall  invariably  be  carried  in  a  secure  dry  boot,  under  the  driver's  feet,  or 
in  the  box  which  constitutes  the  driver's  seat,  under  a  penalty  of  fifty  dol- 
lars for  each  omission;  and  when  it  is  carried  on  horseback,  or  in  a  vehicle 
other  than  a  stage,  it  shall  be  covered  securely  with  an  oilcloth  or  bearskin, 
against  rain  or  snow,  under  a  penalty  of  twenty  dollars  for  each  time 
the  mail  is  wet,  without  such  covering:  and  for  permitting  the  mail  to  be 
injured  a  second  time,  for  carrying  it  contrary  to  the  stipulations  before  re- 
cited, the  Postmaster  General  shall  have  a  right  to  annul  this  contract.  The 
mail  shall  be  put  in  a  post  office,  if  there  be  one  where  the  carrier  stops  at 
night;  if  there  be  no  office,  it  shall  be  kept  in  a  secure  place,  and  there  be 
locked  up  at  the  contractor's  risk. 

8.  The  whole  forfeiture  and  penalties  to  be  incurred  in  the  course  of 
any  one  trip  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  specified  in  the  third  article,  which 
the  contractors  hereby  bind  themselves  to  pay  to  the  Postmaster  General. 

9.  The  said  Postmaster  General  covenants  with  the  said  contractors  to 
pay  as  aforesaid  for  the  carriage  of  said  mail  as  aforesaid,  at  the  rate  afore- 
mentioned quarterly,  in  the  months  of  May,  August,  November,  and 
February. 

10.  It  is  mutually  understood  by  the  contracting  parties,  that  if  the 
route,  or  any  part  of  the  route  herein  mentioned  shall  be  discontinued  by 
act  of  Congress,  or  in  the  opinion  of  the  Postmaster  General  becomes  use- 
less, then  this  contract,  or  such  part  of  it,  shall  cease  to  be  binding  on  the 
Postmaster  General,  he  giving  notice  of  such  event,  and  making  allowance 
of  one  month's  extra  pay. 

11.  This  contract  shall  not  be  assigned  by  the  contractors  without  the 
consent  of  the  Postmaster  General,  and  an  assignment  of  the  pay  shall  in  no 
case  release  the  contractors  or  their  sureties  from  their  responsibilities. 
Should  the  contractors  or  their  agents  be  engaged  in  the  transmission  of 
information  by  express  on  the  routes  herein  designated  more  rapidly  than 
the  mail,  without  the  consent  of  the  department,  the  cpntract  shall  be 
forfeited. 

Provided  always.  That  this  contract  shall  be  null  and  void  in  case  the 
contractors  or  any  person  that  may  become  interested  in  this  contract,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  shall  become  a  postmaster  or  an  assistant  postmaster. 
No  member  of  Congress  shall  be  admitted  to  any  share  or  part  of  this  con- 
tract or  agreement,  or  to  any  benefit  to  arise  thereupon;  and  this  contract 
shall,  in  all  its  parts,  be  subject  to  the  terms  and  requisitions  of  an  act  of 
Congress  passed  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight,  entitled  '*  An  act  concerning  public 
contracts." 

And  it  is  mutually  covenanted  and  agreed  by  the  said  parties,  that  this 
contract  shall  commence  on  the  first  day  of  .Tanuary  next,  and  continue  in 
force  until  the  thirty  first  day  of  December,  inclusively,  which  will  be  in 
the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

In  witness  whereof,  \\\cy  have  hereunto  interchangeably  set  their  hands 
and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

(Signed)  JAS.  REESIDE,  [seal.] 

SAM'L  R.  SLAYMAKER,     [seal.] 
JESSE  TOMLINSON.  [seal.] 

Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of 

ROB'T  D.  CARSON, 
JACOB  SHERER. 


[  86  ] 


236 


No.  1,031.  Contractors  to  be  allowed  25300  per  annum  additional,  from 
1st  January,  1832,  for  conveying  the  mail  three  times  a  week  in  four  horse 
post  coaches,  from  Harrisburg,  by  Sliinmantown  and  Mechanicsburgh,  to 
Carlisle.    See  letter  to  Recsuie  and  Slaymakcr,  dated  I4th  December,  1831. 

No.  1,031.  Allowance  of  iglO,000  for  extra  conveyance  of  newspapers, 
found  on  the  pay  list,  withdrawn  from  1st  December,  1S33. 

September  24,  1S34.     No.  1,170.     Curtailed  at  Washington  from  Pitts- 
burg; decrease  33  miles,  deduction  $741  a  year,  from  day  of 
1834. 


Schedules  of  Nos.   1031,  1170,  1231,  part  o/1198  and  1388,  12/A  Sep- 

temberj  1832. 

Leave  Philadelphia  daily  at  -  -  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Chambersburgh  next  day  by      - 

Leave  Chambersburgh  same  day  at  -  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Pittsburgh  next  day  by  .  -  -  - 

Leave  Pittsburgh  daily  at  -  -  -  -  - 

.Arrive  at  Chambersburgh  next  day  by     - 

Leave  Chambersburgh  same  day  at  -  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Philadelphia  next  day  by  -  -  - 

Leave  Pittsburgh  daily  at  (June  30,  1834,)  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Washington  same  day  by  11  a.  m.,  and  Wheeling  by 
Leave  Wheeling  daily  at  -  .  .  .  . 

Arrive  at  Washington  same  day  by  9  A.  M.,  and  at  Pittsburgh  by 
Leave  Pittsburgh  daily  at  .  -  -  -  , 

Arrive  at  Washington  same  day  by  -  -  -  - 

Leave  Washington  daily  after  the  arrival  of  the  great  mail  from 

Wheeling,  say  -..--- 

Arrive  at  Pittsburgh  next  morning  by       - 
Leave  Hagerstowu  daily  after  the  arrival  of  the  great  mail  from 

Baltimore,  say  -  -  -_  -  -  -     7  A.  m. 

Arrive  at  McConnellsburgh  same  day  in  time  to  connect  with  the 

great  or  rapid  mail  from  (/hambersburgh,  say    -  -  -     1  p.  M. 

Leave  McConnellsburgh  daily  after  the  arrival  of  the  second  mail 

from  Mount  Pleasant,  say         -  -  -  -  -     3  p.  m. 

Arrive  at  Hagerstovvn  same  day  by  -  -  -  -     9  r.  m. 

Leave  Mount  Pleasant  every  other  day  at  -  -  -    2  a.  m. 

Arrive  at  Washington  same  day  in  time  to  connect  with  the  mail 

from  Pittsburgh  for  Wheeling  by  -  -  -  -11a.m. 

Leave  Washington  every  other  day  after  the  arrival  of  the  mail 

from  Wheeling  at         -----  - 

Arrive  at  Mount  Pleasant  same  day  by    -  -  -  - 

Leave  Baltimore  daily  at  -  -  -  -  . 

Arrive  at  Chambersburgh  same  day  by     - 

Leave  Chambersburgh  daily  at  8  or  9  a.  m.,  after  the  mail  arrives 

from  Pittsburgh,  (November  12,  1833,)  .  -  - 

Arrive  at  Baltimore  same  day  by  -  -  -  . 


8  A. 

M. 

8  A. 

H. 

9  A. 

M. 

6  p. 

M. 

4  A. 

M. 

12    M 

. 

1   P. 

If. 

1    P. 

M. 

4  A. 

M. 

6  P. 

M. 

5  a. 

M. 

6  p. 

M. 

2  p. 

M. 

7  p. 

£1. 

10  p. 

ST. 

3  a. 

H. 

9  A. 

M. 

7  p. 

M. 

7  A. 

M. 

3  p. 

il. 

3  A. 

V. 

4  p. 

M. 

237 


86  ] 


TViis  Schedule^  subject  to  alteration  hy  the  Postmaster  General,  agree- 
ably to  the  provision  (ionlaiued  in  the  second  section  of  the  contract. 

From  1st  April  to  1st  December. 

No.  1031.  1st  Mail. 


Leave  Philadelphia  daily  at         -  -  -  -  • 

Arrive  at  Pittsburgh  in  (ifty-two  hours,  via  Mt.  Pleasant,  by 
Leave  Pittsl)urgh  daily  at  ..... 

Arrive  at  Philadelphia  in  fifty  three  hours,  in  time  for  the  morning 
steamboat  to  New  York,  by      .  -  •  .  - 

2d  Mail. 

Leave  Philadelphia  daily,  after  the  arrival  of  the  mail  from  New 
York,  at  -  -  .  .  .  -  - 

Arrive  at  Pittsburgh  in  eighty  hours,  via  Stewartsville,  hy 
Leave  Pittsburgh  daily  at  -  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Philadelphia,  in  eighty  hours,  by         - 
No.  1170. 

Leave  Pittsburgh  daily  at             -  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Wheeling  same  day  by  -  -  - 

Leave  Wheeling  daily  at              .  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Pittsburgh  same  day  by  -  -  - 

From  December  1st  to  April  1st. 

No.  1031.  1st  Mail.  * 

Leave  Philadelphia  daily  at  -  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Pittsburgh  the  third  day  by  - 

Leave  Pittsburgh  daily  at  -  -  -  - 

Arrive  at  Philadelphia  third  day  by  -  -  - 

2d  Mail. 

Leave  Philadelphia  daily  at  - 

Arrive  at  Piitshurgh  the  fourth  day  by    - 
Leave  Pittshnrgh  daily  at  .  _  -  . 

Arrive  at  Philadelphia  the  fourth  day  by        ,        - 
No.  1170. 

Leave  Pittsburgh  daily  at              -  -  ,      - 

Arrive  at  Wheeling  same  day  by  .  -             - 
Leave  Wheeling  every  day  at      - 

Arrive  at  Pittsburgh  same  day  by  -  -             » 


•3  p.  ar. 
7  p.  M, 
4  A.  M. 

9  A.   M. 


-  4  A.  M. 
-12  N00X> 

-  4  A.  M. 

-  12  K00N» 

-  8  A.  M. 

-  9  p.    M. 
.  4  A.  M. 

-  6  P.   M. 


2  A. 

&[. 

8  p. 

M. 

1  A. 

M. 

6  P. 

M. 

8  a. 

M. 

6  p. 

M. 

4  A. 

M. 

2  p. 

M. 

3  A. 

M. 

6  p. 

M. 

3  A. 

M. 

Gp. 

Mo 

Post  Office  Department, 
Northern  Divisiony  October  6,  1S34. 
I  certify  that  the  foregoing  arc  true  copies  from  thu  originals  on  file  in 
this  department. 

THOMAS  B.   ADDISON, 
Co7itract  Clerk  of  the  Northern  Division. 

•  Sec  letter  to  Contractor,  dated  26tU  May,  1832. 


[  86  ]  238 

[Doc.  No.  86.] 


•  Decemhtr  23,  1S34. 


Alexander  F.  Glass,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 
respective  interrogatories: 

Question  1.  Where  do  you  reside,  and  what  opportunities  have  you  had 
for  observing  the  passing  and  repassing  of  the  mails  Irom  Philadelphia  to 
Pittsburgh,  and  for  what  length  of  time? 

Answer  1.  I  now  reside  in  Columbia,  Pa.,  and  have  done  so  since  May 
last;  previous  to  that  at  Harrisburg,  from  January,  1832;  and  previously, 
from  October,  1S31,  at  the  office  of  Slaymaker  and  Co.,  in  Philadelphia. 
I  am  now,  and  was  while  in  Harrisburg,  an  agent  for  the  above  company; 
and  at  Harrisburg  parilcularlj*,  the  mails  passed  daily  under  my  observation, 
h;  Question  2.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  a  great  increase  of  mail  matter 
on  that  route  since  the  year  1830;  if  so,  state  when,  and  to  what  extent 
this  increase  was,  and  what  was  the  cause  of  il? 

Answer  2.  There  was  a  great  increase.  It  was  gradual  up  to  the  latter 
part  of  1S32,  and  the  early  pait  of  1833;  the  m^ils  were  then  at  their 
heaviest.  I  think  in  the  spring  of  1833  there  was  a  sudden  decrease  ia 
their  weight. 

Question  3.  Do  you  know  what  caused  this  sudden  decrease? 

Answer  3.  I  understood,  from  the  contractors  and  agents,  that  part  of 
the  mails  were  then  sent  by  Baltimore  to  Wheeling.  This  was  about  the 
time  the  steamboats  began  lo  run  to  Baltimore. 

Question  4.  How  were  the  mails,  as  io  weight,  in  1832,  compared  lo 
1631  and  1830,  except  the  latter  part  of  1832,  of  which  you  have  spoken? 

Answer  4.   I  had  no  opportunity  of  judging  previous  to  January,   1832. 

Question  5.  Were  the  mails  of  the  latter  part  of  1833  and  through  1834 
lighter  or  heavier  than  in  January,  1S32? 

Answer  5.  I  think  the  mails  have  continued  lighter  since  the  spring  of 
1833  than  they  were  in  Janrary,  1832.  wh.en  I  first  went    to  Harrisburg. 

Question  6.  What  was  the  extent  of  the  increase  of  mails  in  1832;  and 
how  did  they  affect  the  running  of  the  coaches? 

Answer  6.  In  the  latter  part  of  1832  we  put  on  coaches  of  a  different 
construction;  they  had  a  swinging  boot  in  front  to  take  part  of  the  mails, 
which  we  laid  aside  since  the  summer  of  1833.  The  mails  on  Sunday 
were  almost  always  so  large  that  we  could  not  carr}''  any  passengers;  some- 
times it  was  so  on  one  other  day  of  each  week.  This-continued  I  think  un- 
til the  change  in  1833  before  spoken  of.  I  should  think  the  heavy  mails 
spoken  of  would  weigh  at  least  three  thousand  pounds.  We  had  from 
seven  to  twelve  and  fourteen  mail  bags.  I  have  often  helped  to  fill  the 
stage  inside  as  high  as  the  doors.  1  never  weighed,  but  judge  from  their 
weight  in  handling. 

Question  7.  Did  you  keep  any  books  showing  the  number  of  passengers 
each  day? 

Answer  7.  I  only  kept,  while  at  Harrisburg,  a  book  for  way  passengers. 
Thompson,  at  Chambersburg,  kept  a  general  book  of  passengers. 

Question  8.  Did  the  great  western  mail  pass  through  Columbia  always 
since  1833? 

Answers.  No.   It  only  began  about  May  last. 

ALEXANDER  F.  GLASS. 


239  [  86  3 

[Doc.  No.  87.] 

Chambersbukg,  November  IS,  1S34. 

Samuel  R.  Slaymaker,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 

interrogatories:       ' 

Question  1.  What  amount  did  you  receive  of  the  extra  allowance  of 
$10,000  on  the  route  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  and  who  received  the 
balance? 

Answer  1.  I  received  one  half  of  it,  and  .James  Reeside  received  the 
balance. 

Question  2.  In  what  manner  did  you  settle  with  your  other  pajtners  for 
that  allowance?  State  the  time,  manner,  and  circumstances. 

Answers.  Witness  refuses  to  answer  the  question.  He  was  then  re- 
quested to  retire,  and  the  comn^ittee,  on  consultation,  were  unanimously  of 
the  opinion  that  the  question  was  proper,  and  ought  to  be  answered;  and- 
thereupon  directed  the  witness  to  ai)pear  before  them  that  the  querUion  might 
be  again  propounded  to  him.  Whereupon  the  witness  appeared,  and  the 
question  being  again  propounded  to  him,  refused  to  answer. 

Samuel  R.  Slaymaker  again  voluntarily  appeared' before  the  committee, 

and  testified  as  follows: 

Question  1.  W^hat  portion  of  the  allowance  of  $10,000  per  annum, 
amounting  in  the  whole  to  Sl7,5()0,  for  carrying  the  newspapers  in  the  fast 
line  from  Pliiladelphia  to  Pittsburgh  was  paid  to  you  by  the  department? 

Answer  I.   One  half. 

Question  2.  Had  you  partners  on  that  line? 

Answer  2.   I  had. 

Question  3.  Did  you  pay  over  any  portion  of  that  money  to  your  part- 
ners, or  what  disposition  did  you  maUe  of  it? 

Answers.  1  settled  with  my  partneis  for  it  by  claims  which  1  held 
against  them. 

Question  4.  Can  you  furnish  the  commitlec  with  a  statement  of  those 
claims? 

Answer  4.  I  can't  tell  the  Items  exactly;!  have" not  them  heie. 

Question  5.   State  as  nearly  as  you  can  what  they  were. 

Answer  5.  Services  rendered  for  two  years  and  three  months,  travelling 
expenses,  losses  sustained  in  accounting  for  the  receipts  on  waybills  in  the 
offices  betwen  Chambersburg  and  Downingtown. 

Question  6.   When  did  you  settle  with  your  partners? 

Answer  6.   In  May  or  June  last. 

Question  7,  Did  you  settle  youiselves,  or  was  the  saltlement  made  by 
arbitration? 

Answer  7.   I  settled  with  two  of  the  company. 

Question  S.  Who  were  they? 

Answer  8.  Jno.  Sinckion  and  Isaac  Downing.  Stockton  resides  in  Vir- 
ginia; Downing  in  Downingtown,  Pennsylvania. 

Question  9,  Did  you  exhibit  an  account  stated  with  them? 

Answer  9.  I  showed  them  a  memorandum  of  the  losses  I  supposed  1  had 
eustained,  and  told  them  at  the  time  I  had  rendered  the  services,  lor  which 
I  had  received  no  compensation. 

Question  10.  Were  those  two  persons  authorized  to  settle  in  behalf  of  U^e 
whole  company? 


[  86  ]  240 

Answer  10.  They  were. 

Question  1 1 .  Were  they  also  interested  in  this  allowance? 

Answer  1 1 .  Yes. 

Question  12.  Did  you  ever  make  known  to  the  other  members  of  the 
company  the  fact  that  you  had  received  this  extra  allowance,  and  that  you 
claimed  it  on  account  of  services  rendered  and  losses  eustained? 

Answer  12.     I  did  not. 

Question  13.     Why  did  you  not  inform  your  partners  of  the  allowance? 

Answer  13.      I  can  state  no  particular  leason  for  if. 

Question  14.  How  long  had  you  been  receiving  this  allowance  before  it 
was  made  known  to  your  partners,  and  how  often  had  you  settled  with  them 
without  communicating  it? 

Answer  14.     I  cau't  tell.     I  do  not  recollect  how  often  or  how  long. 

Question  15.  When  those  two  individuals  above  named  were  autho- 
rized to  settle  with  you  in  hehnlf  of  the  company  for  this  allowance,  was  it 
onderstood  that  your  communication  to  them  should  be  in  private,  or  was 
it  open  before  such  members  of  the  company  as  saw  fit  to  attend? 

Answer  15.     It  was  open  to  such  of  them  as  chose  to  come  in. 

Question  16.     Was  Jesse  Tomlinson  one  of  your  partners? 

Answer  16.     He  was. 

Question  17.  Did  you  ever  state  to  him  that  0.  B.  Brown  was  to  have 
$1,000  of  that  allowance? 

Answer  17.     Never,  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  IS.  Did  you  ever  state  to  any  person  that  you  had  been  charged 
with  extras  on  some  of  your  other  routes  which  you  had  never  received, 
but  for  which  you  had  performed  service,  and  that  this  1^10,000  per  annum 
was  in  part  to  make  tiial  good  to  you? 

Answer  IS.     I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Question  19.  Is  it  true  that  you  were  so  charged  for  extras  which  you 
never  received? 

Answer  19.      I  do  not  know  thai  I  was. 

Question  '20.  1  find  in  your  account  under  date  June  30,  1S32,  a  credit 
for  express  mail,  York  to  Philadeljihia,  from  the  1st  December,  1831,  to  1st 
April,  1S'?2,  S3, 150.      Did  you  run  such  express  during  that  time? 

Answer  20.  I  suppose  that  to  be  one  of  the  winters  we  run  it.  We  run 
it  two  winters. 

Question  21.  Give  an  account  of  that  express?  Tell  us  what  it  was,  and 
what  service  it  rendered? 

Answer  21.  It  vvas  an  express  line  of  coaches  to  carry  a  portion  of  the 
mail  from  Washington  to  Philadelphia.  I  run  the  road  from  York  to  Phi- 
ladelphia; Mr.  Stockton  from  \\  ashington  City  to  York. 

Question  22.  Had  you  a  line  of  coaches,  beside  the  express  coaches,  from 
York  to  Philadelj)hia;  and  did  you,  on  another  contract,  carry  the  mail  be- 
tween those  places? 

Answer  22.  I  had  another  line  between  York  and  Philadelphia,  in  which 
I  carried  the  mail. 

Question  23.  What  did  you  receive  for  carrying  the  mail  on  that  route, 
feeside  the  express? 

Answer  23.  From  Lancaster  to  Philadelphia  is  included  in  my  Pittsburgh 
contract;  York  to  Lancaster  and  Lancaster  to  Gettysburgh  I  took  under  Mr. 
Stockton. 

Question  24.  How  often  di'l  vou  run  on  that  route  from  York  to  LancaS' 
ter? 


241  [  8G  ] 

Answer  24.  Daily. 

Question  25.  Did  you,  in  addition  to  your  daily  line,  run  an  accommoda-" 
tion  line  for  passengers? 

Answer  25.    I  did  not. 

Question  26.  Did  you  in  the  winter,  while  you  were  paid  for  yourexr- 
press,  run  two  lines  of  coaches  on  that  route? 

Answer  2G.   I  did. 

Question  27.  Did  you  during  the  whole  time  run  two  daily  lines  of 
coaches  from  Ist-fanuary  to  1st  April,  IS32,  York  to  Lancaster? 

Answer  27.   We  ran,  whilst  the  navigation  was  closed,  two  lines. 

Question  28.  Did  your  regular  daily  line  and  your  express  set  out  from 
York  and  arrive  at  Lancaster  at  the  same  time? 

Answer  2S.   No. 

Question  29.  Did  you  run  an  additional  line  during  that  winter  from 
Lancaster  to  Philadelphia,  or  was  the  mail  which  came  hy  that  express  line 
Bent  on  from  Lancaster  hy  one  of  your  other  lines  of  coaches? 

Answer  29.    We  ran  an  additional  line  for  that  express  mail. 

Question  30.  During  the  suspension  of  naviujation  did  all  your  line* 
of  coaches  generally  run  full  of  passengers  from  York  to  Philadelphia? 

Answer  30.  I  think  not. 

Question  31.  What  time  did  your  regular  mail  leave  York  going  east- 
ward, and  at  what  time  did  your  express  line  leave  York  in  same  direction? 

Answer  31.  The  regular  mail  left  about  2  P.  M.  The  express  from  6  to 
8  P.  M. 

Question  32.  At  what  time  did  each  line  arrive  in  Philadelphia? 

Answer  32.  The  regular  mail  waited  at  Lancaster  over  night  and  went 
on  with  Pittsburgh  mail  next  day.  The  express  went  on  immediately,  and 
reached  Philadelphia  from  S  A.  M.  to  10  A.  M. 

Question  33.  Has  any  part  of  that  extra  allowance  of  10,000  dollars  per 
annum,  or  of  any  other  sum  charged  to  you  or  paid  to  you  by  the  depaitment^ 
been  in  any  manner  returned  to  any  of  the  offic:>rs  of  the  department,  or 
has  it  been  left  or  placed  in  such  situation  that  any  officer  or  officers  of  the 
department  have  received  it,  or  have  received  the  benefit  of  any  portion  of 
it,  directly  or  indirectly? 

Answer  33.  No. 

Question  34.  Has  any  portion  of  the  money  which  you  stated  on  a  former 
occasion  you  had  lent  to  0.  B.  Brown  been  repaid  by  him;  and  if  it 
have,  state  particularly  the  time  and  manner  of  repayment? 

Answer  34.   It  has  not  been  repaid,  nor  any  pirl  of  it. 

Question  55.  Diil  you  at  the  time  of  making  those  loans,  make  them  with 
the  view  that  they  ever  were  to  be  lepaid? 

Answer  35.    I  did  expect  Mr.  Brown  to  repay  me. 

Question  36.  Did  you  expect  him  to  repay  you  in  money  of  his  own,  or 
did  you  expect  repayment  in  another  manner? 

Answer  36.   In  money  of  his  own. 

Question  37.  H.ive  you  since  your  last  examination  found  any  memoran- 
dum of  either  of  those  loans  to  Mr.  Brown  on  your  books,  or  among  your 
papers? 

Answer  37.   I  never  have  examined  for  them. 

Question  38.    Have  you  .seen  any  such  memorandum  since? 

Answer  38.   No. 

Question  39.   Do  you  bilieve  you  have  any  memorandum  of  tiie  kind? 
31 


[  86  ]  242 

Answer  39.  My  impression  is,  that  I  have  them  entered  in  my  memoran- 
dum book  at  home.  ■    ' 

,  Question  40.  Did  you  mention  these  loans  to  Mr.  Brown  to  Messrs. 
Stockton  ard  Downing  at  the  time  they  settled  with  you  for  this  allowance 
of  10,000  dollars,  as  items  of  your  claim  against  the  company? 

Answer  40.  They  vvere  spoken  of  at  the  time  in  speaking  of  the  report 
of  the  committee,  hut  not  seliled  as  items  in  that  account. 

Question  41.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Major  Barry  or  Mr. 
Brown  about  the  mode  in  which  you  should  carry  the  newspapers  be- 
tween Philadelphia  and  Pittsburgh  before  your  bid  was  accepted  in  1831  j 
if  you  did,  state  what  it  was? 

Answer  41.  I  had  conversations  with  one  or  both  of  them.  I  do  not  re- 
collect whelhcr  before  or  after  the  hid  was  accepted.  The  understanding 
wa?,  that  the  r  ewspapers  were  to  be  carried  in  the  slow  line,  and  nothing  but 
letters  in  the  fast  line. 

Question  42.  Did  you  carry  the  newspapers  in  the  slow  line  during  any 
part  of  the  year  1S;32? 

Answer  42.    We  carried  a  considerable  portion  of  them  in  the  slow  line. 
Question  43.    Did  you  carry  any  part  in  the  slow  line  through,  from 
Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh,  or  merely  ihose  newspapers  for  the  way  post 
offices? 

Answer  43.  My  impression  is  we  carried  in  the  slow  line  a  considerable 
portion  through  to  Pittsburgh. 

Question  44    During  what  part  of  the  year  did   you  carr}'  a  portion  of 
newsprip'jrs  through  to  Pittsburgh  in  the  slow  line? 
Answer  44.   In  the  beginning  of  the  year. 

Question  45.  Did  you  not  carry  during  the  whole  year  as  you  did  from 
the  beginning? 

Answer  45.   My  impression  is  we  did  not. 

Question  46.  Do  you  know  that  there  was  any  order  to  the  postmaster  at 
Philadelphia  to  make  any  change  in  the  mails  he  should  give  you  to  carry, 
on  either  of  your  lines,  durinu;  that  year? 

Answer  4G.    I  do  not  know  whether  there  was  or  not. 
Question  47.  Did  you  carry  such  mails  as  were  given  you  by  the  post- 
master, or  were  you  in   the  liabil  of  .••electing  such  as  you  saw  fit  to  carry, 
or  such  as  in  your  own  judgment  yon  thoujiht  you  ought  to  carry? 

Answer  47.  I  was  not  at  Philadelphia  where  the  mails  were  loaded,  but 
at  Lancaster,  when  we  passed  them  on;  and  1  do  not  know. 

Question  4S.    Who  superintended  that  mail  line  at  Philadelphia? 
Answer  4S.  Jesse  Tomlinson  a  part  of  the  time,  and  Ziba  Durkee  a  part 
of  the  time. 

Question  49.  There  is  a  letter  signed  by  James  Reeside  and  yourself,  ad- 
dressed to 'he  Postmaster  General,  in  which  this  extra  allowance  is  asked 
for.  It  bears  date  May  12,  1S32.  Was  that  letter  written  and  signed  by  you 
and  Reeside  at  the  time  it  bears  date? 

Answer  49.    My  impression  is  thai  it  was. 

Question  50.  Was  this  e.xtra  allowance  made  shortly  after  the  writing  of 
thai  letter? 

Answer  50.    I  think  it  laid  over  for  some  time  without  a  decision. 
Question  51.   What  time  do  you  think  the  allowance  was  first  made? 
Answer  51.   I  cannot  recollect;  my  impression  is  it  was  in  the  tall  of  1832. 
Question  52.     Did  you  in   the  spring  of  1833  tell  Jesse  Tomlinson  that 
this  allowance  was  not  yet  made? 


243  [  8^"]' 

Answer  52.  I  told  him  at  one  time  that  the  allowance  was  not  yet  made; 
I  do  not  recollect  when  it  was. 

Question  53.   At  the  time  you  so  told  him  had  the  allowance  been  made? 

Answer  53.   I  presume  it  was  not,  or  I  should  not  have  told  him  so. 

Question  54.  At  whose  request  did  you  write  the  letter  of  May  12,  1832; 
was  it  at  the  request  or  by  the  directions  of  any  officer  of  the  department; 
if  it  were,  state  wlio,  and  the  circumstances  attending  it? 

Answer  54.  When  we  spoke  to  the  Postmaster  General  about  the  allow- 
ance, he  told  us  to  communicate  any  thing  we  h.id  to  say  in  writinj;. 

SAMUEL  R.  SLAYMAKER. 


[Doc.  No.  88. — Sec  Appendix.] 


[Doc.  No.  89] 

Correspondence  and  order  of  cfun/ge  in  route  from  Ilagerstown  to 

McConnellsburg. 

Nov.  21,  1833. 

Ko.  1231,  Maryland:  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg,  26  miles — Reeside 

and   Sla)  maker;    daily,  four  horse  post  coaclies,    1400  dollars.     To  be 

reduced  to  three  times  per  week. 

Contractors  request  that  schedule  mny  be  arranged  so  as  to  connect  at 
Hagerstown  with  the  Reliance  line  from  Baltimore,  and  with  the  fast  line 
at  McConnellsburg;  or,  if  that  is  denied,  that  they  may  carry  mail  on  horse, 
and  connect  the  stages  as  above. 

Shall  we  allow  them  privilege  of  carrying  mail  on  horse,  according  to 
the  present  schedule,  and  allow  them  to  run  the  stajics  acconling  to  the 
schedule  the)''  propose,  and  also  to  carry  a  mail  on  thai?     Do  so. 

Wrote  contractors  and  postmasters  Hagerstown,  Mercersburg,  and  Mc- 
Connellsburg. 


Post  Office  Department, 

Northern  Division^  Nov.  22,  1833. 
Gentlemen:  The  Postmaster  General  allows  you  the  privilege  of  chang- 
ing i\w.  hours  of  departure  and  arrival  of  your  four  horse  post  coach  mail 
on  1231,  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg,  provided  you  will  convey  a 
mail  on  horseback  on  that  route  daily,  according  to  the  present  schedule.  A 
mail  must  be  conveyed  in  the  post  coach  also  each  trip. 

1  am,  respecifidly, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

S.  R.   HOBBIE. 
Messrs.  Reeside  and  Slaymaker,  Lancaster,  Pa. 


Po.sT  Office,  Hagerstown, 

^prit  ly,  1S34. 
Sir:  The  contractor  on  route  1231,  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg, 
Penn.,  instead  of  transporting  the  mail  tri- weekly,  as  is  now  the  case, 


[  86  ]  244 

to  carry  it  daily,  provided  permission  be  given  to  leave  Hagerstovyn  at 
4  A.  M.,  which,  under  the  summer  arrangement  of  the  Wheeling  arrange- 
ment, will  be  before  the  arrival  of  the  mail  from  the  east.  He  also  says 
that  he  will  require  no  additional  compensation  to  that  now  given.  If  thia 
•rrangement  meets  your  approbation,  if  it  is  your  wiah  I  will  arrange  the 
schedule. 

Respectfully, 

HOWARD  KENNEDY. 

Post  Office  Department, 

Northern  Division,  <April  25,  1834. 
Sir:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  19lh  instant,  I  have  to  inform  you 
that,  in  consideration  of  the  contractor  conveying  the  mail  daily  instead  of 
tri-weekly,  on  the  route  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg,  the  depart- 
ment will  not  object  to  a  starj  at  4  A.  M. 

I  am,  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

S.  R.  HOBBIE. 
H.  Kennedy,  Esq.,  P.  M.,  Hagersloiorir  M^d. 


[  Doc.  No.  90.  ] 
CopT/  of  Contract  Bedford  to  IVashington— James  Reeside. 
No.  1,198,  S2,900— $725. 

This  contract,  made  the  fifteenth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  ojie  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  thirty-one,  between  James  Reeside,  of  Philadelphia, 
(Pennsylvania,)  contractor  for  carrying  t!ie  mails  of  the  United  States  of 
one  part,  and  the  Postmaster  General  of  the  United  States  of  the  other  part, 
witnesseth,  that  the  said  parties  have  mutually  covenanted  as  follows,  viz.: 
The  said  contractor  covenants  with  the  Postmaster  General: 

1  To  carry  the  mail  of  the  United  States  from  Bedford  (Pa.)  by  White 
Horse,  Gebhard's,  Somerset,  Donegal,  Mount  Pleasant,  McKean's  old  stand, 
Robbstown,  Gamble's,  and  Parkinsons's  ferry,  to  Washington  and  back 
three  times  a  week,  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  at  the  rate  of  seven  hundred 
and  twenty  five  dollars  for  every  quarter  of  a  year,  during  the  continuance 
of  this  contract;  to  be  paid  in  drafts  on  postmasters  on  the  route  above 
mentioned,  or  in  money,  t.t  the  option  of  the  Postmaster  General,  in  the 
vnonUfi  of  May,  Jiiigust,  November,  and  February. 

2.  That  the  mails  shall  bo  duly  delivered  at,  and  taken  from  each  post  office 
now  established,  or  that  may  be  established  on  any  post  route  embraced  in 
this  contract,  under  a  penally  of  ten  dollars  for  each  offence;  and  a  like 
penally  shall  be  incurred  for  each  ten  minutes  delay  in  the  delivery  of  the 
mail  after  the  time  fixed  for  its  delivery  at  any  post  office  specified  in  the 
schedule  hereto  annexed;  and  it  is  alsa  agreed  that  the  Postmaster  General 
may  alter  the  times  o(  arrival  and  departure  fixed  by  said  schedule,  and 
alter  the  route;  (he  making  an  adequate  compensation  for  any  extra  expense 
which  may  be  occasioned  thereby;)  and  the  Postmaster  General  reserves 
the  right  of  annulling  this  contract,  in  case  the  contractor  does  not  promptly 
adopt  the  alteration  required. 


245  [   86  1 

3.  If  the  delay  of  the  arrival  of  said  mail  continue  iinlil  the  hour  for  the 
departure  of  any  conneclin/^  mail,  whereby  the  mails  destined  for  such  con- 
necting mails  shall  lose  a  trip,  it  shall  be  considered  as  a  whole  trip  lost, 
and  a  forfeiture  of  thirty  dollars  shall  be  incurred;  and  a. failure  to  take  the 
mail,  or  to  make  the  proper  exchange  of  mails  at  connecting  points,  shall 
be  considered  a  whole  trip  lost;  and  for  any  delay  or  failure  equal  to  a  trii* 
lost,  the  Postmaster  General  shall  have  full  power  to  annul  this  contract. 

4.  That  the  said  contractor  shall  be  answerable  for  the  persons  to  whom 
he  shall  commit  the  care  and  transportation  of  the  mail,  and  accountable  for 
any  damages  which  may  be  sustained  through  their  unfaithfulness  or  want 
of  care. 

5.  That  seven  minutes  after  the  delivery  of  the  mail  at  any  post  office  on 
the  aforesaid  route  not  named  in  the  annexed  schedule  shall  be  allowed 
the  postmaster  for  opening  the  same,  and  making  up  another  mail  to  be 
forwarded. 

6.  The  contractor  agrees  to  discharge  any  driver  or  carrier  of  said  mail, 
whenever  required  to  do  so  by  the  Postmaster  General. 

7.  That  when  the  said  mail  goes  by  stage,  such  stage  shall  be  suitable 
for  the  comfortable  accommodation  of  at  least  seven  travellers;  and  the 
mail  shall  invariably  be  carried  in  a  secure  dry  boot,  under  the  driver's 
feet,  or  in  the  box  which  constitutes  the  driver's  seat,  under  a  penalty 
of  fifty  dollars  for  each  omission;  and  when  it  is  carried  on  horseback,-  or 
in  a  vehicle  other  than  a  stage,  it  shall  be  covered  securely  with  an  oil- 
cloth or  bear-skin,  against  rain  or  snow,  under  a  penalty  of  twenty  dollars 
for  each  time  the  mail  is  wet,  without  such  covering;  and  for  permitting 
the  mail  to  be  injured  a  second  time,  for  carrying  it  contrary  to  the  stipula- 
tions before  recited,  the  Postmaster  General  shall  have  a  right  to  annul  this 
contract.  The  mSil  shall  be  put  in  a  post  office,  if  there  be  one  where  the 
carrier  stops  at  night;  if  there  be  no  office,  it  shall  be  kept  in  a  secure 
place,  and  there  be  locked  up  at  the  contractor's  risk. 

8.  The  whole  forfeiture  and  penalties  to  be  incurred  in  the  course  of  any 
One  trip  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  specified  in  the  third  article,  which  the 
contractor  hereby  binds  himself  to  pay  to  the  Postmaster  General. 

9.  The  said  Postmaster  General  covenants  with  the  said  contractor  to 
pay  as  aforesaid  for  the  carriage  of  said  mail  as  aforesaid,  at  the  rate  afore- 
mentioned, quarterly,  in  the  months  of  May,  August,  November,  and 
February. 

10.  It  is  mutually  understood  by  the  contracting  parties,  that  if  the 
route,  or  any  part  of  the  route  herein  mentioned,  shall  be  discontinued  by  act 
of  Congress,  or  in  the  opinion  of  the  Postmaster  General  becomes  useless, 
then  this  contract,  or  such  part  of  it,  shall  cease  to  be  binding  on  the  Post- 
master General,  he  giving  notice  of  such  event,  and  making  allowance  of 
tone  month's  extra  pay. 

11.  This  contract  shall  not  be  assigned  by  the  contractor  without  the 
consent  of  the  Postmaster  General,  and  an  assignment  of  the  pay  shall  in 
no  case  release  the  contractor  or  his  sureties  from  their  responsibilities. 
Should  the  contractor  or  his  agents  be  engaged  in  the  transmission  of 
information  by  express  on  the  routes  herein  designated  more  rapidly  than 
the  mail,  without  the  consent  of  the  department,  the  contract  shall  be 
forfeited. 

Provided  ahvaysy  That  this  contract  shall  be  null  and  void  in  case  the 
iibntractor,  or  any  person  that  may  become  interested  in  this  contract^ 


[  86  ]  246 

directly  or  indirectly,  shall  become  a  postmaster  or  an  assistant  postmaster. 
No  member  of  Congress  shall  be  admitted  to  any  share  or  pait  of  this  con- 
tract or  agreement,  or  to  any  benefit  to  arii:e  thereupon;  and  this  contract 
shall,  in  all  its  parts,  be  subject  to  the  terms  and  requisitions  of  an  act  of 
Congress,  passed  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight,  entitled  "  An  act  concerning  public 
contracts." 

And  it  is  mutually  covenanted  and  agreed  by  the  said  parties,  that  this 
contract  shall  commence  on  the  first  day  of  January  next,  and  continue  in 
force  until  the  thirty-first  day  of  December  inclusively,  which  will  be  in 
the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

In  witness  whereof,  ihey  have  hereunto  interchangeably  set  their  hands 
and  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

(Signed)  J  AS.  REESIDE,  [seal.] 

Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of  / 

(Signed)     Richard  C.  Whiteside. 

December  29,  1831. — The  contractor  was  directed  to  carry  the  mail  daily. 

November  19,  1833. — Contractor  notified  that  it  being  understood  he  was 
conveying  the  mail  but  three  times  a  week,  the  additional  allowance  of 
$3,866  66  ceased  from  1st  day  of  January,  1S33. 

November  11,  1S34. — Erroneous;  daily  service  ceased  August  11,  1833. 
(See  letter  of  postmaster  at  Bedford.) 

This  schedule  subject  to  alteration  by  the  Postmaster  General,  agreeably  to- 

the  provision  contained  in  the  second  section  of  the  contract. 

Leave  Bedford  every  Monday,  Wednesday  and  Friday,  at  ;  arrive 

at  Washington  next  days  by  .      Leave  Washington  every  Monday, 

Wednesday  and  Friday,  at  ;  arrive  at  Bedford  next  days  by 

(For  schedule  of  part  1,1  f)S,  see  James  Reeside  &  Co. 's  contracts  for  1,031 
and  1,170,  schedule  dated  12th  September,  1832.) 

I,  James  Reeside,  being  appointed  a  mail  contractor,  do  swear,  that  I  wili 
faithfully  perform  all  the  duties  required  of  me,  and  abstain  from  every 
thing  forbidden  by  the  law  in  relation  to  the  establishment  of  post  oflfices 
and  post  roads  within  the  United  States.  And  I  do  solemnly  swear  that  I 
"will  support  the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Sworn  before  the  subscriber  ,  for  the  of  ,  this 

day  of  ,  A.  D. 


Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  James  Reeside  as  principal,  Rich- 
ard Morris  and  David  Dorrance,  as  sureties,  are  held  and  firmly  bound  unto 
the  Postmaster  General  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the  just  and  full 
sum  of  two  thousand  nine  hundred  dollars,  value  received,  to  be  paid  unto 
the  Postmaster  General  or  his  successors  in  office,  or  to  his  or  their  assigns^ 
to  which  payjiient,  well  and  truly  to  be  made,  we  bind  ourselves,  our 
heirs,  executors,  and  administrators,  jointly  and  severally,  firmly  by  theso 
presents.  Sealed  with  our  seals,  dated  the  seventeenth  day  of  December,.. 
in  tha  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-one. 

The  condition  of  this  obligation  is  such,  that,  whereas  the  above  bounden 
James  Reeside,  by  a  certain  contract  bearing  date  the  fifteenth  day  of  Octo- 
ber, in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-one, 
covenanted  with  the  said  Postmaster  General  to  carry  the  mail  of  the 


247  [  86  ] 

United  States  from  Bedford  to  Washington,  (Pennsylvania,)  as  per  contract 
annexed,  commencing  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  thirty  two,  and  ending  the  thirty-first  day  of  December,  which  will  be 
in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

Now,  if  the  said  James  Reeside  shall  well  and  truly  perform  the  cave- 
nants  in  the  said  indenture  expressed  on  his  part  to  be  performed,  and  shall 
account  for  all  penalties,  and  shall  promptly  repay  all  balances  that  may  at 
any  time  be  found  due  from  him,  then  this  bond  is  to  be  void;  otherwise  to 
remain  in  full  force. 

(Signed)  JAMES  REESIDE.     [seal.] 

RICHARD  MORRIS,   [sbal.  | 
DAVID  DORRANCE.  [seal.] 
Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of 
(Signed)      R.  C.  Whiteside. 

A  true  copy  from  the  original  on  file  in  the  General  Post  Office. 

MW.  ST.  CLAIR  CLARKE,  Secretary. 
December  31,  1834. 


[Doc.  No.  91.] 

Post  Office  Department,  October  4,  1S34, 

Sfr:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  the  accompanying  report  of  the  Assist- 
ant Postmaster  General,  in  answer  to  the  resolution  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Senate  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post  Roads  of  the  3d  instant. 

I  am,  respectfully, 

.  Your  obedient  servant, 

W.  T.  BARRY. 
Honorable  Felix  Grundy, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post  Roads,    '] 


Resolved^  That  the  Postmaster  General  be  directed  to  inform  the  com- 
mittee  how  the  mail  has  been  carried  since  the  1st  of  January,  1S34,  from 
Bedford  to  Somerset  and  Mount  Pleasant  to  Washington,  Pennsylvania;, 
whether  it  has  been  carried  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  daily,  or  in  what 
manner.  Also,  that  he  give  the  same  information  as  to  the  route  from  Cum- 
berland to  Bedford,  and  from  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap.  Also  from  Hagers- 
town  to  McConnellsburg.     Also  from  Pottsvillc  to  Philadelphia. 

Washington,  October  3,  1831. 
Sir:  I  am  directed  by  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  to  deliver  to  you  the 
above  copy  of  a  resolution  this  day  adopted  by  them. 
Very  respectfully,  sir. 

Your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  MW.  ST.  CLAIR  CLARKE, 

Secretary. 
To  Hon.  Wm.  T.  Barry,  Postmaster  General. 

Major  Hobble  will  ascertain  and  report  the  facts  that  appear  from  the  re- 
cords and  papers  in  his  division,  in  answer  to  the  call  of  the  committee. 

(Signed;  W.  T.  BARRY 


[  86  3  ^48 


Post  Office  Depaiitment, 

Northern  Division,  October  3,  1834. 

Sir:  1  find  thnt  the  rotilc  inquired  of  in  the  resolution  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Senate  of  the  3(1  inst. ,  as  running  from  Bedford  by  Somerset  and 
Mount  Pleasant  to  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  is  route  No.  1 198,  contracted 
to  James  Reeside  as  a  tri-weekly  route,  but  ordered  before  the  commence- 
ment of  performance,  under  the  contract  on  the  Isl  January,  1S32,  to  be  rutt 
daily  in  four  horse  post  coaches.  In  the  retrenchments  ordered  in  Novem- 
ber, 1S33,  this  service  vvas  reduced  to  tr!-vveckly,  and  the  additional  allow- 
ance granted  for  running  it  daily  was  withdrawn.  As  verbal  information 
had  been  received  at  the  department  that  the  service  on  this  route  previously 
to  the  retrenchment  was  only  tri-weekly,  the  lime  when  the  allowance  for 
running  it  daily  was  to  cease  was  entered  on  the  contract  in  blank;  and  as 
the  letter  calling  on  the  contractor  to  state  when  said  daily  service  ceased 
was  answered  by  saying  the  information  would  be  given  at  sojne  future  day, 
when  the  contractor  would  be  at  Washington  city,  and  as  he  omitted  after- 
wards making  any  statement  on  the  subject,  the  clerk  having  charge  of  the 
contract  books  filled  up  said  blanks  by  inserting  1st  January,  1832,  the  day 
the  contract  went  into  operation.  He  did  thi.<,  however,  in  pencil  mark,  so 
that  in  case  it  should  be  shown  that  the  daily  service  had  been  rendered  du- 
ring any  period  of  the  contract,  the  endorsement  might  be  corrected  to  agree 
with  the  fact. 

The  presumption  of  the  clerk  that  the  daily  service  had  not  been  rendered 
at  all  is  erroneous;  for,  by  a  thorough  examination  among  the  files,  I  find  the 
time  when  the  running  of  the  daily  mail  on  No.  1 198  ceased  is  specially  re- 
ported by  the  postmaster  of  Bedford,  J.  H.  Hofins,  esq.,  under  dale  of  Au- 
gust 22d,  1833,  in  the  words  following:  "Since  the  17th  inst.  the  mails  on 
route  (1198)  from  Bedford  to  Washington  are  only  every  other  day  deliver- 
ed and  sent,  instead  of  a  daily  mail."*  There  appears  nothing  on  the  files 
to  show  that  it  was  run  otherwi.'se  than  daily  in  four  horse  post  coaches  up 
to  the  17th  August,  1833,  or  otherwise  than  every  other  day  in  four  horse 
post  coaches  from  that  date  to  the  time  of  the  retrenchment,  or  otherwise 
since  than  tri-weekly  in  four  horse  post  coaches. 

The  route  described  in  the  resolution  to  be  from  Cumberland  to  Bedford, 
and  from  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap,  I  find  to  be  the  two  routes  numbered  1230 
and  1215,  from  Cumberland  to  Bedford  and  from  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap. 
The  last  run  to  Hollidaysburgh  a  portion  of  the  time,  near  to  Blair's  Gap. 
They  are  contracted  to  James  Reeside,  to  be  run  three  times  a  week  in  four 
horse  post  coaches.  I  find  it  endorsed  on  the  contract  under  date  of  Febru- 
ary 25,  1833,  that  the  contractor  was  directed  to  run  the  mail  daily  on  these 
routes,  and  to  be  allowed  a  pro  rata  increaee  of  pay;  but  the  day  when  the 
additional  service  commenced  is  not  entered. 

In  the  retrenchments  of  last  fall,  which  were  in  most  cases  ordered  to  take 

October  4,  1834. 

'  I  was  In  en-or  in  supposing  that  daily  service  had  not  been  performed  on  route  No.  1,198. 
The  letter  of  Mr.  Hofins,  above  alluded  to,  was  received  during  my  absence  in  Pennsylva- 
nia  on  the  lousiness  of  the  department,  was  endorsed  by  the  clerk  then  in  charge  of  my  desk, 
»nd  placed  on  file;  and  having  no  occasion  to  refer  to  the  papers  relating  to  the  route,  [ 
was  not  till  today  aware  of  its  existence.  It  reports  the  daily  service  as  having  ceased  17th 
August,  1833. 

E.  L.  CHILDS, 
Ccrrtsjxmding  Clerk  of  MddU  SeditH, 


249  [  ^6    3 

effect  on  the  1st  Deceniber,  1833,  the  above  mentioned  order  for  a  daily- 
mail  on  these  routes  was  rescinded.  And  in  the  recent  retrenchments,  No, 
1230,  from  Cumberland  lo  Bedford,  is  reduced  to  a  horse  mail  once  a  week> 
and  No.  1215,  Bedford  to  Blair's  Gap,  to  a  horse  mail  twice  a  week. 

It  appears  that  the  contract  for  the  tri. weekly  service  on  these  routes  was 
not  drawn  up  earlier  than  March,  1832,  and  was  not  carried  into  execution 
till  some  time  afterwards.  The  postmaster  of  Bedford,  J.  H.  Hofins,  re- 
ports, under  date  of  the  4th  June,  1832,  that  the  tri-weckly  service  com- 
menced on  the  28th  May,  on  horseback;  and  under  date  of  July  28,  1832^ 
that  Mr.  Reeside  commenced  on  1230  with  two  horse  coaches  on  the  26tb 
of  that  month.  I  find  nothing  on  file  showing  that  the  routes  have  beenrua 
differently  than  what  is  above  reported.  But  the  contractor aveis that sinc& 
he  put  on  stages  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  1832  he  has  run  in  six  passenger 
stages  with  four  horses  most  of  the  lime,  going  on  horseback  when  the  bad 
state  of  the  roads  compelled  him  to  do  so. 

The  route  from  Hagerstown  to  McConnellsburg  is  No.  1,331.  I  find 
that  it  was  contracted  to  James  Reeside,  to  run  daily  in  four  horse  post 
coaches.  In  the  retrenchments  of  last  fall  it  was  reduced  to  three  times  a 
week.  I  cannot  find  any  reports  from  postmasters  or  other  information  on 
file,  showing  that  the  route  wus  not  run  daily  in  four  horse  post  coaches, 
during  the  time  the  contract  so  required  it  to  be  carried,  or  as  often  at  least 
astri-weekly  in  four  horse  post  coaches  since.  After  the  route  was  redueed 
to  three  times  a  week  the  contractor  applied  for  a  chango  of  schedule, 
which  the  department  deemed  it  inexpedient  to  grant.  He  then  proposed^ 
if  the  department  would  consent  to  his  coaches  running  by  a  different  sche- 
dule from  the  existing  one,  to  carry  a  mail  three  times  a  week  in  his  coaches,, 
ind  also  to  carry  a  mail  three  times  a  week  on  horseback  according  to  the 
existing  schedule,  giving  a  six  times  a  week  mail,  under  a  contract  that 
called  for  only  a  tri-weekly,  and  without  any  additional  charge.  This  was 
acceded  to  by  the  department.  It  appears  to  have  been  run  in  this  mannei^ 
fhrough  the  winter  of  1834;  and  after  that  arrangements  were  made  with 
the  postmaster  of  Hagerstown,  as  he  reports,  to  carry  it  daily  in  coaches 
without  additional  charge. 

The  route  from  Pottsville  to  Phifadelphia  is  route  No.  1,036,  conlracted 
to  James  Reeside,  Jacob  Peters,  John  N.  ISLltemorc,  and  others.  I  find 
nothing  on  the  files,  nor  any  other  information  in  the  possession  of  the  de- 
partment, showing  that  the  contractors  have  not  run  twice  a-day  in  four 
horse  post  coaches,  as  the  contract  requires. 

S.  R.  HOBBIE, 
Assistant  Posinmster  Gfnei'aL 
To  the  Hon.  W.  T.  Barrf, 

Pontmaater  General. 

[  Doc.  No.  92.  ] 

Hackensack,  N.  J.,  September  20,  1331- 
We  will  convey  llie  mail  agreeably  to  advertisement  on  route  No.  951 
from  the  city  of  New  York,  State  of  New  York,  to  Philadelphia,  Pennsyl^ 
vania,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of  nineteen  thousand  five  hundred  dol-^ 
lars — furnish  guard  for  the  mail  free  of  expense  to  the  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment. 

ALBT.  DOREMUS, 
30  HORACE  THOM  PSON • 


[  86  ]  250 

Washington,  December  5,  1834. 
I  certify  the  above  to  be  truly  copied  from  the  original  on  file  in  the  Ge- 
ineral  Post  Office. 

MW.  ST.  CLAIR  CLARKE,  Secretary. 


[Doc.  No.  93.] 

Washington  City,  D.  C,  Sept.  26,  1831. 

We  will  convey  the  mail  agreeably  to  advertisement  on  route  No.  1,389, 
from  Baltimore  to  Cumberland,  and  on  route  No.  1,201  from  Cumberland 
to  Wheeling,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of  nine  thousand  dollars;  and  for 
the  yearly  additional  compensation  of  five  thousand  dollars,  we  will  convey 
the  same  from  Baltimore  to  Wheeling  in  fifty-six  hours — fifteen  hours  less 
than  advertised  time. 

We  will  convey  the 'mail  agreeably  to  advertisement  on  route  No.  951, 
from  the  city  of  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania,  for  the  yearly 
compensation  of  eight  thousand  dollars;  or 

For  the  yearly  compensation  of  fifteen  thousand  dollars  we  will  convey 
ihe  mail  on  route  No,  951,  from  city  of  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  in 
eleven  hours;  and 

For  the  yearly  compensation  of  eighteen  thousand  dollars  we  will  convey 
the  mail  from   New  York  to  Philadelphia  in  safety  carriages,  made  for  the 
express  purpose  of  conveying  mails,  in  ten  hours  each  way. 
EZRA  PL  ATT,  of  lieadmg,  Pa. 
WM.  F.  FENLON,  of  Georgelown,  D.  C. 
JAMES  L.  GILLIS,  Montmoring,  Pa. 
JOHN  M.  HUGHES  &  0  THERS,  Albany,  N.  Y, 

Washington,  December  5,  1834. 
I  certify  the  within  writing  to  be  truly  copied  from  the  original  on  file 
■}n  the  General  Post  Oifice. 

MW.  ST.  CLAIR  CLARKE,  Secretary. 


[  Doc.  No.  94.  ] 

Washington  Citt,  September  2|6,  1831. 

Dear  Sir:  I  offer,  on  the  part  of  the  Philadelphia  and  New  York  Union 
L»ine  Stage  Company,  to  convey  the  United  States  mail,  as  advertised,  on 
route  No.  951,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of  $13,200.  • 

I  engage  to  convey  the  mail  as  it  now  is,  for  the  first  year;  the  remaining 
three  years  to  convey  the  great  mail  by  steamboats  and  the  Camden  and 
Amboy  railroad.  To  leave  each  city  at  3  o'clock  P.  M.,  and  arrive  by 
12  o'clock  at  night,  making  but  nine  hours  through  from  city  to  city. 

I  also  engage  to  convey  a  mail  by  land  daily,  (Sundays  excepted,)  in  two 
horse  post  coaches  during  the  last  three  years.  To  leave  Philadelphia  and 
New  York  at  3  o'clock  P.  M.,  and  arrive  next  day  at  6  o'clock  A.  M. 

I  will  also  engage  to  convey  a  morning  or  steamboat  mail  as  it  is  now 
conveyed  for  the  first  year;  the  remaining  three  years  to  convey  it  by 
steamboats  and  the  Camden  and  Amboy  railroad.  Leave  each  city  at 
6  o'clock  A.  M.,  and  arrive  by  3  o'clock  P.  M.  same  day,  being  but  nine 
flours  from  city  to  city,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of  $16,000. 


251  [  86  ] 

The  railroad  will,  in  all  probability,  be  completed  from  Bordentown  to 
Amboy  by  the  1st  of  September,  1S32.  In  that  case  the  contractors  would 
then  commence  conveying  the  mails  by  that  conveyance,  if  agreeable  to 
Post  Office  Department.  References  to  the  enclosed  letter,  as  well  as  others 
previously  handed  in  to  the  department. 
1  have  the  honor  to  be 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

VVM.   B.  JAQUES,  .'?^e;i^,  New  Yorky 
For  the  Philadelphia  and  New  York  Union  Line  Stage  Company. 

To  the  Hon.  War.  T.  Barry,  ' 

Postmaster  General. 

P.   S,   I  beg  leave  to  state  to  the  Post  Office  Department,  that  the  present 
applicants  offered  to  include  the  present  contractor. 

W.  B.  J. 

Washington,  December  5,  1834. 

I  certify  the  above  to   be  truly  copied   from   the  original  on  file  in  the 
General  Post  Office. 

MW.  ST.   CLAIR  CLARKE,  Secretary. 


[Doc.  No.  95.] 
No.  951:— ^6,000. 

This  contract,  made  the  fifteenth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  thirty-one,  between  James  Reeside,  of  Philadelphia, 
Pa,,  contractor  for  carrying  the  mails  of  ihe  United  States,  of  one  part,  and 
the  Postmaster  General  of  the  United  States  of  the  other  part,  witnesseth, 
that  the  said  parties  have  mutually  covenanted  as  follows,  viz. :  The  said  con- 
tractor covenants  with  the  Postmaster  General: 

1.  To  carry  the  mail  of  the  United  States  from  New  York,  N.  Y.,  by 
Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  Newark,  Elizahethfown,  Rahway,  New  Brunswick, 
Kingston,  Princeton,  Trenton,  Morrisville,  Pa. ,  TuUytovvn,  Brisfol,  Anda- 
lusia, Holmesburg  and  Frankford,  to  Philadelphia,  daily,  in  four  horse  post 
coaches,  the  department  to  defray  the  expense  of  carrying  the  mail  across 
the  Hudson  river.  It  is  hereby  stipulated  that  the  contractor  shall,  when- 
ever the  Postmaster  General  shall  direct,  so  expedite  as  to  always  run  from 
post  office  to  post  office,  through  the  entire  route,  in  thirteen  hours;  shall 
run  two  mails  a  day  during  steamboat  navigation,  one  to  leave  the  respec- 
tive cities  in  the  morning,  and  the  other  in  the  evening,  and  always  give 
such  further  increased  expedition  as  may  at  any  lime  be  necessarv  to  per- 
fect the  connexion  at  each  end  of  the  route;  shall  furnish  the  mails  with  a 
double  armed  guard  at  his  own  expense,  and  so  expedite  as  to  gain  one  hour 
between  New  York  and  Nevv  Haven,  or  more,  if  required,  and  furnish 
government  expresses,  when  required,  for  the  additional  sum  of  thirteen 
thousand  dollars  per  year;  and  if  a  second  daily  mail  shall  be  required  by 
land  during  the  winter,  he  shall  carry  the  same  ibr  the  further  sum  of  fifteen 
hundred  dollars  a  year;  at  the  rate  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars  for  every 
quarter  of  a  year,  during  the  continuance  of  this  contract;  to  be  paid  in 
drafts  on  postmasters,  on  the  route  above  mentioned,  or  in  money,  at  the 
option  of  the  Postmaster  General,  in  the  months  of  May,  t^ugust,  Novem" 
ber'  and  February. 


[  86  ]  252 

2.  That  the  mail  shall  be  duly  delivered  at,  and  taken  from  each  post 
office  now  established,  or  that  may  be  established  on  any  post  route  em- 
braced in  this  contract,  under  the  penalty  of  ten  dollars  for  each  offence; 
and  a  like  penalty  shall  be  incurred  for  each  ten  minutes  delay  in  the  deli- 
Tery  of  the  mail  after  the  time  fixed  for  its  delivery  at  any  post  office  speci- 
fied in  the  schedule  hereto  annexed;  and  it  is  also  agfreed,  that  the  Post- 
master General  may  alter  the  times  of  arrival  and  departure  fixed  by  said 
schedule,  and  alter  the  route  (he  making  an  adequate  compensation  for  any 
extra  expense  which  way  be  occasioned  thereby;)  and  the  Postmaster 
General  reserves  the  right  of  annulling  this  contract  in  case  the  contractor 
does  not  promptly  adopt  the  alterations  required. 

3.  If  the  delay  of  the  arrival  of  said  mail  continue  until  the  hour  for  the 
departure  of  any  connecting  mail,  whereby  the  mails  destined  for  such  con- 
necting mails  shall  lose  a  trip,  it  shall  be  considered  as  a  whole  trip  lost, 
and  a  forfeiture  of  one  hundred  dollars  shall  be  incurred;  and  a  failure, to 
take  the  mail,  or  to  make  the  proper  exchange  of  mails  at  connecting  points, 
shall  be  considered  a  whole  trip  lost;  and  for  any  delay  or  failure  equal  to 
a  trip  lost,  the  Postmaster  General  shall  have  full  power  to  annul  this 
contract. 

4.  That  the  said  contractor  shall  be  answerable  for  the  persons  to  whom 
he  shall  commit  the  care  and  transportation  of  the  mail,  and  accountable  for 
any  damages  which  may  be  sustained  through  their  unfaithfulness  or  want 
of  care. 

5.  That  seven  minutes  after  the  delivery  of  the  mail  at  any  post  office  on 
the  aforesaid  route  not  named  in  the  annexed  schedule  shall  be  allowed 
the  postmaster  for  opening  the  same,  and  making  up  another  mail  to  be 
forwarded. 

6.  The  contractor  agrees  to  discharge  any  driver  or  carrier  of  said  mail, 
■whenever  required  to  do  so  by  the  Postmaster  General. 

7.  Tliat  when  the  said  mail  goes  by  stage,  such  stage  shall  be  suitable  for 
the  comfortable  accommodation  of  at  least  seven  travellers;  and  the  mail 
shall  invariably  be  carried  in  a  secure  dry  boot,  under  the  driver's  feet,  or 
iii  the  box  which  constitutes  the  driver's  seat,  under  a  penalty  of  fifty  doU 
lars  for  each  omission:  and  when  it  is  carried  on  horseback,  or  in  a  vehicle 
other  than  a  stage,  it  shall  be  covered  securely  with  an  oilcloth  or  bear-skin, 
against  rain  or  snow,  under  a  penalty  of  twenty  dollars  for  each  time  the 
mail  is  wet,  without  such  covering;  and  for  permitting  the  mail  to  be  injured 
a  second  tinic,  for  carrying  it  contrary  to  the  stipulations  before  recited,  the 
Postmaster  General  shall  have  a  right  to  annul  this  contract.  The  mail  shall 
be  put  in  a  post  office,  if  there  be  one  where  the  carrier  stops  at  night;  if 
there  be  no  office,  it  shall  b?  kept  in  a  secure  place,  and  there  be  locked  up 
at  the  contractor's  risk. 

8.  The  whole  forfeiture  and  penalties  to  be  incurred  in  the  course  of  any 
one  trip  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  specified  in  the  third  article,  which  the 
contracior  hereby  binds  himself  to  pay  to  the  Postmaster  General. 

9.  The  said  Postmaster  General  covenants  with  the  said  contractor  to 
pay  as  aforesaid  for  the  carriage  of  said  mail  as  aforesaid,  at  the  rate  afore- 
mentioned, quarterly,  in  the  months  of  Mai/,  Jlu^ust,  Novembery  and 
February. 

10.  It  is  mutually  understood  by  the  contracting  parties,  that  if  the  route, 
or  any  part  of  the  route  herein  mentioned,  shall  be  discontinued  by  act  of 
Congres.*!,  or  in  the  opinion  of  the  Postmaster  General  becomes  useless, 


253  [  86  ]' 

then  this  contract,  or  such  part  of  it,  shall  cease  to  be  binding  on  the  Post- 
master Genera!,  he  giving  notice  of  such  event,  and  making  allowance  oC 
one  month's  extra  pay. 

11.  This  contract  shall  not  be  assigned  by  the  contractor  without  the 
consent  of  the  Postmaster  General,  and  an  assignment  of  the  pay  shall  in  na 
case  release  the  contractor  or  his  sureties  from  their  responsibilities.  Should 
the  contractor  or  his  agents  l)e  engaged  in  the  transmission  of  information 
by  express  on  the  routes  herein  designated  more  rapidly  than  the  mail^ 
without  the  consent  of  the  department,  the  contract  shall  be  forfeited. 

Provided  a/way s,  That  this  contract  shall  be  null  and  voiil,  in  case  the 
contractor,  or  any  person  that  may  become  interested  in  this  contract^ 
directly  or  indirectly,  shall  beccm3  a  postmaster  or  an  assistant  postmaster. 
No  member  of  Congress  shall  be  almitted  to  any  share  or  part  of  this  con- 
tract or  agreement,  or  to  any  benefit  to  arise  thereupon;  and  this  contract 
shall,  in  all  its  parts,  be  suhject  to  the  terms  and  requisitions  of  an  act  of 
Congress  passed  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight,  entitled  "  An  act  concerning  public 
contracts." 

And  it  is  mutually  covenanted  and  agreed  by  the  said  "parties,  that  this 
contract  shall  commence  on  tiie  first  day  of  January  next,  and  continue  ia 
force  until  the  thirty-first  day  of  December  inclusively,  whic|j  will  be  in  the 
year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

In  witness  whereof,  they  have  hereunto  interchangeably  ^et  their  hands 
and  seals,  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

(Signed)  JAMES  REESIDE.  [seal.] 

Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of 
.  (Signed)         Richar'd  C.  Whiteside. 


The  following  are  the  additional  entries  made  upon  the  contract  for  route 

No.  951: 

The  increased  service  stipulated  in  the  contract  was  directed  by  the  Post- 
master General  fiom  the  beginning,  for  which  he  is  entitled  to  the  additional 
sum  of  jSl 3,000  per  year;  and  for  the  second  mail  during  the  winter  the 
further  sum  of  $1,500  per  year;  for  an  express  mail,  by  order  of  the  Post- 
master General,  S3, 150  per  year. 

(Dispensed  with;  see  entry  foot  of  contract,) 

April  25,  1S33.  J.  Reeside  engages  to  run  in  twelve  hours  between 
Philadelphia  and  New  York,  agreeably  to  printed  schedule  of  this  date, 
and  to  carry  an  additional  way  mail  from  Philadelphia  to  Trenton  in  time 
to  lap  on  the  steamboat  mails,  ami  back;  and  from  New  York  to  Bruns- 
wick with  like  connexion  and  hack  daily;  and  to  connect  the  way  mails 
from  the  post  ofilce  at  Brunswick  with  the  steamboat  line;  also  to  connect 
the  mails  at  Pliiladelphia  between  steamboat  and  post  office.  The  two 
horse  stage  line  \o  be  run  during  the  season  of  steamboat  navigation — all  for 
the  additiDnal  sum  of  4^5,125  GO      Service  to  commence  on  1st  May. 

Novendicr  19,  l^OS.  "Express  mail"  dispensed  with  by  arrangement 
mad^  25th  April,  '33.  Allowance  of  $3,150  to  cease  from  day  of  25th 
April,  1833. 

June  19,  1834.  Contractor  to  be  allowed  $  per  annum,  for  supplying 
Lawrenceville  and  Six  Mile  Run,  increased  distance  miles,  from  In 
July,  1834. 


[   S6  ]  254 

This  schedule  subject  to  alteration  by  the  Postmaster  General,  agreeably 

to  the  provision  contained  in  the  second  section  of  the  contract. 
Winter  arrangement,  as   directed   by    the  Postmaster  General  to  be   ob- 
served from  1st  January.  1832. 

Leave  N.York  daily  at  4  P.  M.;  arrive  at  Philadelphia  next  day  by  5  A.  M. 
Leave  Philadelphia  daily  at  3  P.M. ;  arrive  at  N.York  next  day  by  4  A.  M. 

Extra  line  to  run  all  the  year  and  by  this  schedule: 
Leave  Philadelphia  daily  at  4  A.M.;  arrive  at  N- York  same  day  by  5  P.M. 
Leave  N.York  daily  at  6  A.  M.;  arrive  at  Philadelphia  same  day  by  7  P.  M. 

Express  line  for  winter  only: 
Leave  N.York  dail}'  at  7  A.M. ;  arrive  atPhiladelphia  same  day  by  6  P.  M. 
Leave  Philadelphia  daily  at  9  A.M.;  arrive  at  N.  York  same  day  by  9  P.M. 

Summer  arrangement: 
Leave  N.York  daily  at  4  P.M.;  arrive  at  Philadelphia  nextdayhy  5  A.  M. 
Leave  Philadelphia  daily  at  G  P.M. ;  arrive  at  N  .York  next  day  by  7  A.  M. 
May  14,  1832.  Contractor  directed  to  arrive  at  New  York  from  Phila- 
delphia by  S  A.  M.      See  letter  book  east  and  north. 

February  25,  1833.  It  is  understood  tiiat  the  contractor  is  to  be  allowed 
sixteen  hours  during  the  winter  arrangement. 

I,  James  Reeside,  being  appointed  a  mail  contractor,  do  swear  that  I  will 
faithfully  perform  all  the  duties  required  of  me,  and  abstain  from  every 
thing  forbidden  by  the  law  in  relation  to  the  establishment  of  post  offices 
and  post  roads  within  the  United  States.  And  i  do  solemnly  swear  that  I 
■will  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  Stales. 

Sworn  before  the  subscriber,  for  the  of 

this  day  of  A.  D. 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  That  we,  James'Reeside  as  principal, 
and  Richd.  Morris  and  David  Dorrance  as  sureties,  are  held  and  firml)'  bound 
unto  the  Postmaster  (General  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the  just 
and  full  sum  of  six  thousand  dollars,  value  received,  to  be  paid  unto  the 
Postmaster  Geneial,  or  his  successors  in  office,  or  to  his  or  their  assigns;  to 
whicii  payment,  well  and  truly  to  be  made,  we  bind  ourselves,  our  heirs, 
executors,  and  administrators,  jointly  and  severally,  firmly  by  these  pre- 
sents. Sealed  with  our  seals;  dated  the  .seventeenlh  day  of  December,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty  one. 

The  condition  of  this  oBligation  is  such,  that  whereas  the  above  bounden 
James  Reeside,  by  a  certain  contract  bearing  date  the  fifteenth  day  of  Octo- 
ber, in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundted  and  thirty-one,, 
covenanted  with  the  said  Postmaster  General  to  carry  the  mail  of  the  United 
States  from  New  York  to  Philadelphia  as  per  contract  annexed,  com- 
mencing the  first  day  of  January,  orie  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty- 
two,  and  ending  the  thirty  first  day  of  December,  which  will  be  in  the  year 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

Now,  if  the  said  James  Rec^^ide  sliall  well  and  truly  perform  the  cove- 
Bants  in  the  said  indenture  expressed  on  his  part  to  he  performed,  and  shall 
account  for  all  penalties,  and  shall  promptly  repay  all  balances  that  may  at 
any  time  be  found  due  from  him,  then  this  bond  is  to  be  void;  otherwise 
to  remain  in  full  force.  JAMES  REESIDE,       [seal.] 

RICHD.   MORRIS,         [seal.] 
DAVID  DORRANCE.  [seal.] 

Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered,  in  the  presence  of 
(Signed)         R.  C.  Whiteside. 


J 


255  [  86  3 

[Doc.  No.  06.] 

December  17,  1834. 
0.  B,  Brown,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respec- 
tive interrogatories,  as  follows,  viz.: 

Question  1.  Were  there  any  propositions  or  conversations  between  you 
and  Edwin  Porter,  respecting  your  having  an  interest  in  the  contract  for 
transportation  of  the  mail  between  Mobile,  in  Alabama,  and  New  Orleans, 
at  any  time?  and  if  so,  state  when,  and  all  you  know  on  that  subject. 

Answer  1.  Mr.  Porter  some  time,  I  rather  think  about  August  or  Sep- 
tember, 1831,  told  me  that  his  engagements  would  require  more  money 
than  he  could  conveniently  raise;  and  asked  me  if  I  knew  of  any  person  who 
would  be  willing  to  make  an  investment  of  a  few  thousand  dollars  in  his 
business.  I  told  him  I  did  not  at  present,  but  probably  might  hear  of  one 
in  a  short  time  that  would  be  glad  to  make  such  investment;  my  mind  was 
upon  Dr.  Jackson,  who  had  then  4  or  5,000  dollars  in  my  hands. 

In  the  month  of  November  following,  Dr.  Jackson,  who  was  attached  to 
the  army,  and  stationed  at  Smithville,  North  Carolina,  visited  us.  He  left 
this  place  on  his  return  in  the  beginning  of  the  following  month,  December^ 
and  left  in  my  hands  a  few  thousand  dollars, With  instructions  to  make  sucb 
investment  of  it  as  would  draw  at  least  lawful  interest,  and  as  would  be  per- 
fectly safe.  At  that  time  it  did  not  occur  to  my  mind  to  say  any  thing  tO' 
him  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Porter's  proposition.  But  some  time  after  he 
had  gone,  I  believe  about  the  middle  of  January,  1832,  it  occurred  to  my 
mind  that  it  might  be  a  profitable  investment  to  him.  I  did  not,  however, 
feel  authorized  to  make  it  unqualifiedly,  without  first  obtaining  his  appro- 
bation, although  I  had  long  held  and  still  held  his  power  of  attorney  to 
act  for  him,  in  any  or  all  his  pecuniary  matters.  Mr.  Porter,  at  that  timCj,^ 
spoke  to  me  of  his  want  of  money;  I  told  him  of  my  having  money  in  my 
hand  of  Dr.  Jackson's,  or  some  of  a  friend;  I  think  I  named  Dr.  Jacksouj, 
but  am  not  certain;  of  which  I  advanced  him  three  thousand  five  hundred 
dollars;  on  this  condition,  that  I  should  have  the  right  to  lake  for  Dr.  Jack- 
son that  amount  of  stock  in  the  company  which  transported  the  mail  be- 
tween Mobile  and  New  Orleans.  Dr.  Jackson,  on  his  way  home,  was  arrest-* 
ed  by  sickness  at  Edenton,  North  Carolina.  I  wrote  to  him  at  EdentoUj. 
informing  him  that  1  had  something  in  view  for  him,  by  which  I  believed 
he  would  do  better  than  to  remain  in  the  army;  and  desired  him,  as  soon  as 
he  should  recover  sufficient  strength,  to  return  to  this  place.  He,  howerer, 
never  recovered,  but  died  on  the  last  day  of  January,  1832. 

The  matter  thus  rested  for,  1  believe,  more  than  a  year,  when  I  tbld  Mr. 
Porter  that  I  desired  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  contract,  but  to  regard 
the  money  as  a  loan  from  the  time  he  received  it.  I  did  then  believe  that 
the  contract  was  making,  clear  of  all  expense,  more  than  50  per  cent,  p^r . 
annum  upon  the  whole  capital  invested;  but  Dr.  Jackson  having  deceased,  I 
should  be  held  accountable  for  his  money,  if  any  loss  should  be  sustained, 
but  1  should  receive  no  part  of  any  profits  that  might  accrue;  and  farther 
than  this,  it  would  devolve  on  me  to  superintend  his  interest,  or  the  inter- 
est of  his  chiltlren,  his  family,  in  case  any  such  stock  shoulii  beheld  for  him 
or  them;  which  I  could  not.  upder  any  circumstances,  consent  to  do,  in  re-  * 
lation  to  business  where  the  transportation  of  the  mail  donstitnted  an  iaol- 
portant  item.  iv>   . 

Question  2.  \%hat  relation  or  connexion  was  Dr.  Jackson  to  you? 

Answer  2.   He  was  the  son  of  my  wife,  by  her  former  husband. 


186]  256 

Question  3.  Was  there  any  change  in  the  contract  for  the  New  Orleans 
mail,  between  the  time  that  Mr.  Porter  and  you  first  held  this  conversation 
and  the  time  of  advancing  the  money  to  him? 

Answer  3.  At  the  time  we  held  this  first  conversation,  Mr.  Porter  had, 
I  believe,  but  a  small  interest  in  that  contract.  It  then  was  for  carrying  the 
mail  between  Mobile  and  New  Orleans,  three  times  a  week,  twenty-five 
thousand  dollars  per  annum:  but,  as  near  as  I  recollect,  about  the  1st  of  De- 
cember, 1831,  Mr.  Porter  became  the  sole  contractor  on  that  route,  though 
I  believe  he  had  partners  in  the  property  employed,  and  the  contract  was 
altered  so  as  to  run  seven  times  instead  of  three  times  a  week,  at  S40,000 
instead  of '^25,000  per  annum,  from  1st  January,  1832. 

Question  4.  Did  you  frequently  see  Mr.  Porter  during  the  year  1832  and 
the  early  part  of  1833? 

Ans'vver  4.     Yes,  frequently. 

Question  5.  Why  did  you  delay  so  long  in  determining  and  communi- 
cating to  Mr.  Porter  that  you  would  not  take  an  interest  in  the  contract? 

Answer  »5.  I  considered  the  money  very  safe,  and  thought  very  little  on 
Ibe  subject,  and  therefore  had  not  fully  determined  whether  it  ought  to  be 
taken  for  the  heirs  of  Dr.  Jackson  or  not. 

Question  6.  What  sum  of  Dr.  Jackson's  had  you  in  your  hands  in  Au- 
gust, 1831? 

Answer  6.  I  cannot  exictly  tell;  it  was  upwards  of  four  thousand  dol- 
lars. 

Question  7.,  Have  you  any  entry  in  any  book,  or  any  writing,  showing 
the  amount  of  Dr.  Jackson's  money  in  your  hands? 

Answer  7.  Dr.  Jackson's  accounts  and  mine  were  between  ourselves, 
and  he  had  in  liis  hands  my  written  acknowledgement  of  it. 

Question  8.     Who  has  the  custody  of  his  papers? 

Answer  8.     His  widow. 

Question  9.  Are  not  those  papers  in  your  power,  so  that  you  are  able  to 
show  to  this  committee  any  written  acknowledgement  of  yours  in  the  hands 
of  Dr.  Jackson  at  his  death? 

Answer  9.  They  are  in  the  custody  of  his  widow,  and  I  presume  she 
would  let  me  see  them  if  I  desired  it. 

Question  10.  Has  that  paper  of  which  you  speak  been  shown  to  you 
since  the  death  of  Dr.  Jackson? 

Answer  10.     Not  that  I  recollect. 

Question  11.  At  what  time  was  this  money  placed  in  your  hands  !?y 
Dr.  Jackson? 

Answer  11.  At  different  times;  I  collected  several  thousand  dollars  for 
him  from  tlie  sale  of  property  in  North  Carolina,  in  the  county  of  Perqui- 
mans. 

Question  12.     At  what  time  were  these  moneys  collected? 

Answer  12.  The  last  property  I  sold  for  him  was  in  1823;  it  was  sold 
on  a  credit. 

Question  13.     If  any  large  sum  were  received  by  you  at  any  time,  state  it. 

Answer  13.  I  settled  all  those  matters  with  Dr.  Jackson,  and  did  not 
think  they  would  be  inquired  of. 

Question  14.  At  the  time  he  was  with  you  in  1831  did  he  place  any- 
further  sum  in  your  hands?  ^ 

Answer  14.     On  (hat  point  I  am  not  able  to  recollect. 


257  [  86  ] 

Question  15.  In  January,  1832,  when  you  made  this  advance  to  Mr, 
Porter,  how  much  of  Dr.  Jackson's  money  had  you  in  your  hands? 

Answer  15.  1  cannot  exactly  recollect,  but  I  presume  it  must  have  been 
nearly  six  thousand  dollars. 

Question  16.  Did  you  hand  that  §3,500  to  Mr.  Porter  at  one  or  several 
times? 

Answer  16.     I  am  not  certain,  but  I  think  at  two  different  times. 

Question  17.  Has  any  more  money  of  Dr.  Jackson's  come  into  your 
hands  since  his  death? 

Answer  17.     There  has,  but  how  much  I  cannot  tpll. 

Question  IS.     Slate  as  nearly  the  amount  as  you  can? 

Answer  IS.     I  cannot  recollect. 

Question  19.     Does  it  amount  to  thousands? 

Answer  19.  VVhy,  1  should  suppose  it  might  amount  to  a  thousand  or 
two,  perha|js  not  over  a  thousand,  that  I  have  actually  received.  When  I 
was  in  difficulty  from  endorsements,  Dr.  Jackson  allowed  me  to  make  use 
of  four  or  five  thousand  dolhrs  of  his  money  for  my  own  relief;  in  conside- 
ration of  which  I  agreed,  at  any  time  when  it  should  be  in  my  power,  to 
make  any  advances  on  account  of  moneys  that  might  be  due  to  him,  when- 
ever he  might  desire  to  make  an  investment  beyond  any  amount  of  moneys 
that  he  might  have  in  hand.  On  this  account  neither  he  nor  1  was  careful 
as  to  any  exact  arnount  which  I  might  have  of  his  in  my  hand;  and  if  an  op- 
portunity had  offered  at  any  time  to  make  an  investment  for  his  benefit  to  the 
amount  of  four  or  five  thousand  dollars  more  than  1  had  in  hand  of  his  at 
the  time,  I  never  should  have  hesitated  in  doing  f  o,  if  I  could  have  bor- 
rowed the  money  from  bank,  confidently  believing  that  other  moneys 
which  he  had  due  to  him  would  be  collected  within  a  reasonable  time  to 
discharge  the  debt,  without  any  risk  on  my  part. 

Quesiion  20.  Have  you  not  kept  an  account  of  the  money  of  Dr.  Jack- 
son which  has  come  into  your  hands  since  his  death? 

Answer  20.  I  have  not.  I  liave  trusted  to  his  wife  to  keep  it,  except 
one  receipt  of  S 1000. 

Question  21.   When  and  from  whom  was  that  received? 

Answer  21.  It  was  received  from  Mr.  Porter  in  the  fall  of  1832,1  think. 
I  do  not  remember  if  it  was  in  that  fall  or  in  the  fall  of  1833. 

Question  22.  For  what  was  it  received? 

Answer  22.  It  was  received  on  account  of  moneys  of  Dr.  Jackson  ad- 
vanced to  him. 

December  ISth,  1834. 

Witness  again  appeared: 

Quesiion  23.  Was  this  Si, 000  which  you  received  of  Mr.  Porter,  in  part 
of  the  principal  of  the  loan  of  JS3,500,  or  for  what  consideration  was  it?  State 
particularly. 

Answer  23.  Il  was  for  no  part  of  that  sum  of  $3,500,  neither  principal 
nor  interest;  but  it  was  on  account  of  another  sum  of  $4,500,  which  Mr. 
Porter  had  received  of  Dr.  Jackson's  money  through  me. 

Quesiion  24.  Are  you  now  able  to  state  at  what  time  this  $1,000  was  paid 
you? 

Answer  24.  It  was  in  the  fall  of  1833;  I  think  it  was  in  the  month  of  October. 

Question  25.    At  what  lime  did  you  lend  Mr.  Porter  that  .$4,500? 

Answer  25.  I  believe  it  was  in  the  month  of  November,  1832.  That  transac- 
tion will  be  belter  understood  by  a  narration  of  the  whole,  which  is  as  follows: 
33 


[  8G  ]  258 

R.   C.  Stockton  and  J.  N.  C.  Stockton   were  contractors  for  carrying 
the  mail  in  Virginia,  between  Fredericksburg  and  Staunton,  a  part  of  the 
route  between  Staunton  and  Chrisiiansbiirgh,  and  1  believe  one  or  two  con- 
necting routes.   Mr.  Porter's  route  connected  with  theirs  at  Fredericksburg, 
Charlottesville,  and  at  Staunton.     Then;   did    not  appear   to   be  a  friendly 
feeling  between  Mr.  Porter  and  R.  C.  Stockton.     Mr.  Porter  called  on  me 
and  told  me  that  J.  N.  C.  Stockton  had  propo.«ed  to  purchase  R.  C.  Stockton's 
half   of  that  contract,   and  would   do   it  provided   he  Mr.   Porier  would 
take  one  half  of  the  .same,  that  is  one  fourJi  of  the  whole  contract,  which 
would  cost  him  S9,000.     He  expressed  a  desire  to  do  so,  and  asked  my 
opinion  of  the  expediency  of  his  doing  so.      I  told  him  that  to  produce  a 
harmonious  ieeling  among  all  the  parlies  whose  routes  were  connected,  I 
should  think  it  advisable,  provided   he  considered  the  property  vvorth  the 
money  which  he  would  be  required  to  pay  for  it.     He  told  me  he  was  de- 
termined to  do  so;  but  knew  not  how  to  raise  the  whole  of  the  money  re- 
quired, and  asked  me  if  I  could  furnish  him  with  the  means  of  paying  for 
about  one  half  of  it.     I  told  him  that  I  could  within  a  very  few  days  have 
at  disposal  a  sum  equal  to  that,  belonging  to  the  estate  of  Uie  late  Dr.  Jack- 
son, which  was  to  be  placed  at  interest,  and  I  would  lei  him  know  within  a 
short  time  whether  I  could  let  him  haveit.     In  a  few  days  after  I  agreed  to 
let  him  have  the  money  on  this  condition,  which  was  his  own  proposition, 
that  it  might  be  an  investment  in  that  stock  for  the  benefit  of  the  heirs  6f 
Dr.  Jackson,  gr  it  might  be  at  the  rate  of  legal  interest.     This  was  in  the 
month  of  November,   1S32,   I  think.      It  thus  remained  till   the  spring 
following,    probably    about    five   months,    when    I    informed    Mr.    Porter 
that,   upon   mature   deliberation  on  the  subject,   I   thought  it  inexpedient 
for  any  money  of  Dr.  Jackson's  estate  to   be  vested   in  any  kind  of  stage 
stock  through   my   agency;  and  that   I   should  therefore  regard  it  purely 
in  the  character  of  a  loan,  at  the  legal  rate  of  six  per  centum  per  annum. 
Mr.  Porter  at  that  time  was  about   leaving  the  city,  and   the  matter  thus 
rested  till  the  following  fall,  1S33,  when  Mr.  Porter  paid  to  me  the  §1,000 
named,  and  told  me  that  it  had   been   to   him  a  very  profitable  purchase. 
That  this  money  had  enabled   him  to  effect  it,  and    that   he  was  willing  for 
the  one  year's  use  of  it   to   give  to  the  heirs  of  Dr.  Jackson   that  $1,000; 
that  it  had  made  for  him  much  more   than  gl,000,  and  that   he  would   give 
me  his  note  for  the  principal,  with  interest  from  the  end  of  one  ye-ir  from 
the  time  he  had  had  it,  which  note  I  took  and  siill  hold. 

Question  26,  Is  that  note  and  the  other  note  for  §3,500  given  to  you  in 
your  own  right,  or  to  you  as  tKustce;  dr  guardian  for  the  heirs  of  Dr. 
Jackson? 

Answer  26.  In  rny  own  right,  of  course,  because  I  have  never  become 
the  legal  guardian  of  the  children  of  Dr.  Jackson,  though  it  was  his  dying 
request  that  I  would  aotas4heir  guardian,  which  I  have  done  in  fact,  though 
noi  in  form;  and  therefore,  I  am  myself  bound  to  the  heirs  of  Dr.  Jackson 
for  all  the  money  belonging  to  them  which  comes  into  my  hand;  and  if  by 
«ny  investment  whatever  it  should  be  lost,  I  should  consider  it  my  loss 
and  not  theirs. 

Question  27.  Have  you  any  written  entry  made  at  the  time  of  the  re- 
ceipt of  this  one  thousand  dollars,  or  shortly  after;  or  did  you  give  any 
written  paper,  showing  that  this  was  so  much  money  received  by  you  for 
the  heirs  of  Dr.  Jackson.  If  aye,,produce  it  to  the  committee,  if  in  your 
power. 


259  [  86  ] 

Answer  27.  I  keep  no  book  of  accounts;  I  made  a  memorandum  of  iJ 
on  a  loose  piece  of  pa])er,  and  I  presume  I  can  find  it  if  I  have  not  handed 
it  over  fo  Mrs.  Jackson. 

At  this  point  the  committee  suspended  further  examination,. and  directed 
witness  to  produce  by  to-morrow  morning  all  original  entries,  papers,  or 
documents  relating  to  the  above  transaction. 

Decemher  19,  1834. 

"Witness  appeared,  and  said,  in  answer  to  the  order  of  yesterday: 
I  have  no  other  papers  than  these;  and  then  produced  a  paper  which  he 
6ald  was  a  true  copy  of  an  original  paper  in  possession  of  Mrs.  Jackson^ 
which  the  committee  refused  to  receive  as  a  compliance  witli  their  order  of 
yesterday,  and  directed  the  witness  to  produce  the  original;  he  then  pro- 
duced two  notes  of  Edwin  Porter,  wliich  were  copied,  and  are  as  follows: 

Washington,  January  13,  1832. 
3,500  dolls. 

On  demand,  I  promise  to  pay  0.  B.  Brown  or  order,  thirty-five  hundred" 
dollars,  borrowed  money,  with  interest  from  date,  value  received. 

-H'^'  EDWIN  PORTEU. 

Washington,  November  13,  1SS3. 
4,500  dolls. 

On  demand,  1  promise  to  pay  0.  B.  Brown  or  order,  four  thousand  five 
hundred  dollars,  borrowed  money,  with  interest  from  date,  for  value  re- 
ceived. I 

EDWIN  PORTER. 

Witness  afterwards  produced  the  paper,  which  he  said  was  the  original: 

Due  .lohn  S.  Jackson,  per  settlement  1st  December,  1831  $4,668  3& 

Received  on  his  account  in  1832,  Cash  of  Mrs.  Jackson  112  00 

Cash  collected  in  xMaryland  340  00 

Cash  of  the  Paymaster  160  00 

1833,  Cash  of  E.  Porter             -  1,000  00 

Amount  in  cash          ...  -  -  g6,280  30 

Received  in  notes  in  1832,  T.  P.  Andrews  -  -  400  00 

R.  C.  Edelen      .  -  -  600  00 

H.  Garner           -  -  -  111   70 

Isaac  Hill              .  -  -  500  00 

A.  Kendall          -  -  -  500  00 


Total ig8392  00 

For  the  above  sum  of  eight  thousand  three  hundred  and  ninety-two  dol- 
lars, I  hold  myself  accountable  to  the  administration  of  the  late  John  S. 
Jackson,  as  1  have  engaged  to  keep  the  same  at  interest  for  the  benefit  of 
his  heirs.  The  interest  which  accrued  prior  to  the  1st  of  Janunry,  1834, 
is  to  be  a  matter  of  seliiement  between  her  and  nie,  on  account  of  the  ex- 
penses of  herself  and  children.  From  the  Isi  of  January,  1834,  I  am  to  pay 
her  interest  for  the  above  sum. 

0.  B.  BROWN. 


[   S6  ]  260 

Question  2S.     When  w.ns  this  pnper  made  out  and  signed  by  you? 

Answer  28.  It  was  made  out  last  evening;  we  settled  that  last  evening- 
Question  29.  You  say,  then,  that  the  original  paper,  which  you  produce 
;  us  under  the  order  of  yesterday,  was  made  out  since  a  copy  of  that  order 
vas  handed  to  you;  do  you  say  so? 

Answer  29.     I  do  not  say  so. 

Question  30.     What  then  do  you  say? 

Answer  30.     I  say  that  particular  paper  was. 

Question  31.  Was  not  the  copy  which  you  produced  to  us  this  morning, 
and  represented  to  us  as  a  copy  of  an  original  paper,  made  out  at  the  same 
time,  either  immediately  before  or  after  the  original,  and  in  fact  a  duplicate 
of  it? 

Answer  31.  It  was  made  out,  I  suppose,  two  or  three  hours  after  the 
original  was  made  out. 

Question  32.  Did  you  look  for  the  original  memorandum  concerning 
'hat  thousand  dollars  received  from  Mr.  Porter;  and  if  you  did  so,  have 
ou  found  it? 

Answer  32.  I  looked  for  that  with  other  papers;  not  more  specially  for 
Ihat  than  others,  but  I  have  not  found  it.  Whether  I  preserved  it  after 
"oentioning  the  fact  to  Mrs.  Jackson,  I  am  not  certain,  though  I   think  it 

>t  improbable  that  it  is  j^et  somewhere  among  the  very  great  mass  of  mis- 
c  ellaneous  papers  which  I  have. 

Question  33.  Did  you  find  any  entry  of  it  in  any  book,  either  of  Mrs. 
Jackson's  or  your  own? 

Answer  33.     No,  I  did  not.     Whether  Mrs.  Jackson  has  an  entry  of  it: 

not  I  cannot  say;  I  did  not  examine. 

Question  34.  Does  this  paper  contain  a  true  account  of  the  amount  of 
moneys  of  Dr.  Jackson,  which  you  had  in  your  hands,  according  to  the 
dates? 

Answer  34.  It  does,  and  I  am  now  indebted  to  Dr.  Jackson's  estate  that 
iimount. 

Question  35.  What  amount  of  cash  had  you  in  your  hands  of  Dr.  Jack- 
son's or  his  estate  in  the  year  1831? 

Answer  35.  In  the  year  1831  i  had  of  cash  which  had  been  paid  me  by 
Dr.  Jackson,  ^4,668  30.  In  1832  I  had  o(  cash  which  had  been  paid  me 
by  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Jackson,  ^5,280  30;  but  this  was  not  all  I  had,  for  what 
!  had  received  on  any  of  the  notes  I  cannot  tell. 

Question  3G.   What  amount  of  notes  had  you  in  your  hands  in  1832? 

Answer  36.      I  had  $2,111   70. 

Question  37.  Had  you  received  in  that  year,  1832,  any  thing  more  than 
.he  interest? 

Answer  37.  1  doubt  whether  I  had. 

Question  38.  How  much,  then,  do  you  suppose  should  be  added  to  the 
S5,2S0  30  to  make  up  the  full  amount  of  cash  in  your  hands?  Did  it  amount 
[n    S300,  more  or  less? 

Answer  38.  I  cannot  say. 

Question  39.  How  much  cash  had  you  in  1833  on  the  same  account? 

Answer  39.   Six  thousand  two  hundred  and  eighty  dollars  and  thirty  cents, 

•sides  the  notes  above  mentioned. 

Question  40.   W^ere  those  notes  endorsed  to  you? 

Answer40.   None  of  them. 

Question  41.  Can  you  tell  the  precise  day  on  which  you  paid  Mr.  Porter 

e  S4,500? 


I 


[  86  ] 


Aniwer  41.  I  became  accountable  to  him  for  it  in  November,  1832. 
Whether  I  paid  it  at  that  time  or  at  a  subsequent  day  I  have  now  no  recol- 
lection. 

Question  42.  Was  it  paid  by  means  of  a  check  on  any  bank,  by  draft,  or 
was  it  paid  in  money? 

Answer  42.  It  was  not  paid  by  check  on  bank,  because  I  kept  no  bank, 
account  at  the  time.  It  was  eventually  paid  by  me  in  money;  but  whether 
to  Mr,  Porter  in  person  or  to  his  order,  I  have  no  recollection. 

0.  B.   BROWN. 


December  20,  \834. 

O.  B.  BROWN  AGAIN  EXAMINED. 

The  committee  showed  him  an  original  paper  from  the  tiles  of  the  de- 
partment, of  the  tenor  following: 

<<  Charlottesville,  25(h  February,  1S33. 
"Sir:  Enclosed  you  have  certificates  in  relation  to  the  very  heavy  extra 
expenses  at  which  I  am  and  have  bean  at  since  1831,  owing  to  the  late  ar- 
rival of  the  mail  from  Washington  city  during  the  stoppage  of  navigation 
and  the  earlier  hour,  during  the  whole  time,  at  which  I  have  to  deliver  my 
mail   from   Charlottesville   into  Fredericksburg;  which  has  caused  me  the 
additional  expense  of  three  teams,  at  one  thousand  dollars  each  per  annum. 
''Which  claim  I  respectfully  submit  to  your  consideration. 
**  Your  most  obedient  servant, 

"  J,  N.  C.  STOCKTON. 
"Hon.  William  T.  Barry, 

Postmaster  General." 

"  Granted  from  the  beginning  of  1832. 

»*  The  contract  time  for  leaving  Fredericksburg  is  2  A.  M.  The  new  ar- 
rangement  of  the  great  southern  mail  requires  the  arrival  at  Fredericksburg 
two  hours  earlier  than  contract  time. 

*'  1,951.  February  28,  1833,  additional  allowance  for  expediting  between 
Fredericksburg  and  Charlottesville,  and  for  detention,  &c." 

Question  43.  And  inquired  of  him  on  what  day  the  allowance  specified 
in  that  paper  was  made? 

Answer  43.  In  answer  thereto  witness  saith,  that  it  is  entered  to  the  cre- 
dit of  the  contractors  on  the  books  cf  the  department  on  the  2Sth  March, 
1833;  and  witness  believes  that  to  be  the  day  on  which  the  allowance  was 
made,  from  the  circumstance  of  its  entry  on  that  day. 

The  committee  also  showed  another  original  paper  from  the  files  of  the 
department,  of  the  tenor  following,  and  put  to  him  the  following  interro- 
gatories concerning  it: 

Question  44.     In  whose  handwriting  is  this  paper? 
^i     Answer  44.     That  paper  is  all   in  my  handwriting,  except  the   words 

*<  allowed,"  twice  written,  which  is  in  the  handwriting  of  the  Postmaster 

General,  William  T.  Barry. 

Question  45.     At  what  time  was  the  allowance  made  mentioned  in  that 

paper? 

Answer  45.     It  is  first  entered  to  the  credit  of  the  contractors  by  a  ge^ 


[   86  ]  262 

:ieral,  and  not  a  special  entry,  under  date  of  1st  July,  IS32,  from  which  it 
would  appear  that  the  allowance  was  made  prior  to  that  date,  but  the  pre- 
cise time  I  cannot  tell.  These  general  entries  are  made  once  every  three 
months. 

Question  4G.  What  routes  were  included  in  the  purchase  by  Edv<rin 
Porter  from  R.  C.  Stockton,  as  heretofore  mentioned  in  your  answers? 

Answer  46.  1  do  not  myself  recollect,  but  from  the  note  on  the  pay  list 
it  appears  to  be  the  following  routes: 

No.  I,y51,  Fredericksburg  to  Charlottesville. 
"     1,952,  Charlottesville  to  Staunton. 
<<     1,953,  Staunton  to  Lexington, 
"     1,954,  Lexington  to  Natural  Bridge. 
*'    1,94S,  Chancellorsville  to  Culpepper  court  house. 

I  am  doubtful  whether  the  last  of  these  was  included,  but  as  that  appears 
to  be  included  in  a  transfer  of  pay  from  R.  C.  to  J.  N.  C.  Stockton,  it  pro- 
bably was  included. 

Question  47.  In  Mr.  Reeside's  account  there  is  the  following  entry  to 
his  credit; 

"  11th  October,  1S33.  Cash  deposited  in  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia, 
30th  November,  1S32,  ^6,000." 

Can  you  inform  the  committee  how  that  credit  arises,  or  produce  any  pa- 
pers explanatory  of  it? 

Answer  47.  When  that  deposite  was  made  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
financial  department;  nor  do  I  know  when  the  entry  was  made  which  you 
have  just  read;  but  Mr.  Reeside  told  me  he  had  made  a  deposite  of  that 
amount  to  the  credit  of  the  department  in  1832,  and  had  got  no  credit  for 
it.  I  do  not  know  any  thing  about  the  allowance  of  the  credit.  My  duties 
as  treasurer  conrimenced  in  March,  1833. 

Question  48.  There  is  also  on  Reeside's  account,  under  date  of  April 
30,  1834,  the  following  credit: 

''Cash  deposited  in  the  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia,  g20,000." 

State  to  the  committee  for  what  this  credit  was  given;  and  if  there  be  any 
papers  explanatory  thereof,  produce  them. 

Answer  48.  The  credit  was  given  on  account  of  that  sum  deposited  by 
j^r.  Reeside  to  the  credit  of  the  department  at  that  time;  the  circumstances 
were  these:  the  department  was  indebted  to  the  Western  Bank,  in  Phila- 
delphia, for  a  loan  of  850,000,  which  loan  became  due  on  or  about  the  30th 
April,  1834.  The  bank  desired  the  debt  to  be  cancelled.  The  pecuniary 
condition  of  the  department  was  such  as  to  render  it  exceedingly  difficult  to 
pay  the  debt  at  that  time.  By  the  direction  of  the  Postmaster  General,  I 
went  to  Philadelphia  to  make  the  best  arrangement  that  1  could  for  liqui- 
dating the  debt.  Mr.  Reeside  agreed  to  raise  iS20,000  towards  it,  provided 
his  draft  on  the  department  for  that  sum  would  be  accepted  at  6  months  from 
date.  His  draft  on  the  department  was  accordingly  accepted  by  the  depart- 
ment, payable  at  six  months  from  that  date.  He  raised  the  money  accord- 
ing to  promise,  and  deposited  it  to  the  credit  of  the  department.  The  cash 
was  therefore  of  course  placed  to  the  debit  of  the  bank  and  the  credit  of  Ree- 
side; and  the  draft,  of  course,  if  paid  at  maturity  by  the  department,  would, 
when  paid,  be  placed  to  the  debit  of  Mr.  Reeside's  account.  This  is  done 
in  conformity  with  the  regular  mode  of  book  keeping. 

Question  49.   Was  the  draft  p^id  at  maturity  by  the  department? 
Answer  49.   I  believe  it  was. 


263  [  86  ] 

Question  50.  lias  the  amount  been  charged  to  the  account  of  Mr.  Ree- 
side? 

Answer  50.   I  believe  it  has. 

Question  51.  Will  you  show  us  on  Reeside's  account  as  made  out  for  us 
by  the  department? 

Answer  51.  It  was  not  payable  before  the  30th  of  October,  and  that  ac- 
count of  Mr.  Reeside  is  not  brought  up  to  that  date. 

Question  52.    Is  it  now  charged  to  Mr.  Reeside  on  your  books? 

Answer  53.  It  is  not  yet  charged  on  the  books,  because  our  bank  book 
with  the  Western  Bank  at  Philadelphia  has  been  sent  on  there  for  settle- 
ment, having  only  been  settled  up  before  this  lime  to  1st  October,  1S34.  The 
monthly  accounts  for  November  with  said  bank  has  not  yet  been  received. 

December  20,  1834. 
Mr.  Brown  being  directed  to  retire  from  the  committee  before  his  depo- 
sition was  closed,  and  for  the  purpose  of  examining  another  witness,  again 
came  before  the  committee,  and  informed  them  that  he  had  made  a  mistake. 
He  had  now  found  the  original  draft  of  S20,000.  In  delivering  that  testi- 
mony, I  was  led  into  a  mistake  as  to  dates.  Two  acceptances  for  $20,000 
€ach  were  made  on  29th  April,  1834.  One  drawn  by  James  Reeside,  in 
favoy  of  R.  C.  Stockton,  payable  three  months  after  date;  the  other  I 
believe  drawn  by  R.  C.  Stockton,  in  favor  of  James  Reeside,  payable  six 
months  after  date.  I  was  under  the  impression  that  the  draft  drawn  by 
Stockton  was  payable  in  three  months,  and  the  draft  drawn  by  Reeside 
was  payable  in  six  months.  The  reverse,  however,  appears  to  have  been 
the  case.  I  have  called  upon  the  clerks  to  search  for  the  draft  which  had 
been  paid  at  the  expiration  of  three  months,  and  returned  to  the  depart- 
ment. They  found  and  presented  to  me  this  draft  which  I  now  hold  in  my 
hand.  It  is  dated  April  29,  1S34,  payable  three  months  after  date  to  the 
order  of  R.  C.  Stockton,  for  S20,000,  on  the  Treasurer  of  the  Post  Office 
Department,  and  accepted  by  me  as  Treasurer.  This  draft  appears  to  have 
been  paid  at  maturity,  and  was  by  mistake  of  the  clerk  charged  to  R.  C. 
Stockton,  in  whose  favor  it  was  drawn,  instead  of  James  Reeside  the 
drawer.  This  mistake  of  the  clerk  appears  to  have  been  the  circumstance 
of  the  error  of  reversing  the  two  drafts.  The  moment  it  was  discovered 
the  correction  was  made  on  the  cash  book,  and  also  in  the  account  of  Mr. 
Reeside,  to  whose  debit  it  now  stands  under  date  of  the         day  of  August 

Question  53.  Will  you  bring  to  the  committee  and  let  them  see  the 
charge  to  Stockton? 

Answer  53.  The  witness  produced  the  leger,  and  exhibited  the  accounts 
of  Messrs.  Stockton  and  Reeside.  The  account  did  not  contain  the  charge 
of  g20,000.  Witness  states  it  had  been  entered,  but  was  erased  by  his 
orders,  by  Mr.  Wheeler,  one  of  the  clerks,  as  soon  as  the  error  was  disco- 
vered, which  was  this  day, 

December  22,  1834. 

Question  54.  Did  the  clerk  who  made  the  first  entry  in  the  cash  book,  ot 
the  charge  of  20,000,  which  you  caused  to  be  erased  on  Saturday,  make  it 
from  the  draft  itself,  or  did  he  make  it,  as  it  was  made,  from  your  directions? 

Answer  54.  I  presume  from  neither;  I  was  not  present  when  he  made  it. 
When  those  two  drafts  for  J520,000  each  were  accepted,  I  was  in  Philadel- 
phia. 1  took  what  1  supposed  to  be  a  correct  memorandum  o  the  accep- 
tancesj  which  paper  I  now  present,  and  is  as  follows,  to  wit: 


[  86  ]  264 

**  Western  Bank, 
1834,  April  30,  Cr.  By  amount  of  loan,  this  day.  cancelled,      y850,000  00 
By  cost  of  exch'ange  on  g4,500  check  on 

Pittsburg,  at  ^  per  cent.      -  -  22  50 


$50,022  50 


Dr.  R.  C.  Stockton,  for  his  draft  of  28lh  April, 

at  3  months,  for  this  sum,         -  -     $20,000  00 

To  James  Reeside,  for   his   draft  of  2Sth 

April,  at  6  months,  -  -       20,000  00 


$40,000  00" 

This  memorandum  I  put  into  the  hands  of  JSIr.  Tastit,  on  my  return  from 
Philadelphia.  There  is  this  error  in  it:  it  was  Mr.  Reeside's  draft  that  was 
payable  in  3  monlhs,  and  Mr.  Stockton's  that  was  payable  in  6  months. 

When  the  first  of  these  drafts  became  due,  it  was  charged  to  the  depart- 
ment by  the  bank;  but  that  the  department  might  obtain  the  draft,  so  as  to 
make  the  proper  charge  against  the  drawer  of  the  draft,  a  check  was  drawn 
on  that  bank  in  favor  of  its  cashier,  for  the  amount  of  the  draft,  and  sent  to 
the  bank  as  its  voucher  for  the  payment  of  the  money;  and  the  draft  returned 
to  the  department  for  a  voucher  against  the  drawer.  It  was,  no  doubt, 
owing  to  this  circumstance  that  the  note  was  made  on  the  margin  of  the 
check  book  of  the  name  of  R.  C.  Stockton  instead  of  James  Reeside,  and  the 
same  in  the  cash  book.  When  the  draft  was  returned,  if  it  had  been  imme- 
diately compared  with  the  cash  book,  the  error  would  have  been  then  de- 
tected and  immediately  corrected;  but  as  there  vvas  an  omission  to  compare 
it  immediately,  the  error  was  not  detected  till  this  inquiry  on  Saturday 
brought  it  to  view.  Nor  would  it  probably  have  been  detected,  but  for  this 
inquiry,  till  the  return  of  the  other  draft,  which  was  paid  about  the  first  of 
November,  and  which,  it  is  expected,  will  be  returned  when  our  bank  book 
now  in  the  hands  of  that  bank  for  settlement  shall  be  returned. 

The  entry  on  the  margin  of  the  check  book  is  as  follows,  viz.: 

''  No.  3,317.      Date ,  (referring  to  an  upper  check  of  20th  August, 

1834,)  favor  cashier  Western  Bank,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

<*  Draft  R.  C.  Stockton.     Account  Transportation. 

<'  Western  Bank,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

'<  Dollars  20,000." 

Question  55.  Tell  us  now  precisely  from  what  paper  your  accountant 
took  that  entry  in  the  cash  book? 

Answer  55.  Either  from  the  check  book,  or  he  entered  it  simultaneously 
with  the  entry  on  the  check  book. 

Question  56.   From  what  was  the  entry  on  the  check  book  made.^ 

Answer  56.  From  the  memorandum  above  referred  to,  intending  to  be  a 
memorandum  subject,  as  in  all  similar  cases,  to  any  correction  which  might 
be  required  by  its  comparison  with  the  draft  when  the  draft  should  be 
received. 

Question  57.  From  what  are  the  numbers  in  the  cash  book  taken? 

Answer  57.^  I  do  not  keep  that  book.  Mr.  Dement  can  tell  you.  But 
the  numbers  on  the  right  hand  column  refer  to  the  numbers  of  the  checks. 

Question  58.   What  do  you  know  respecting  an  allowance  of  three  thou 


265  [    86  J 

-■sand  dollars  made  lo  Edwin  Porter  on  his  contract  on   llie  CharloUesville 
and  Fredericksburg  route,  on  the  28th  of  March,  IvS33? 

Answer  5S.  I  do  not  recollect  ever  to  have  heard  of  that  allowance  till  it  was 
shovvii  to  me  on  Saturday.  I  had  noihina;  to  do  with  the  office  of  mail  con- 
tracts after  the  4th  of  March,  1S33;  and  the  allowance  appears  to  have  been 
made  subsequent  to  that  time,  which  may  account  for  my  having  no  know- 
ledge of  the  circumstance.  From  the  4ih  of  March,  1833,  I  became  trea- 
surer of  the  department,  altliough  Colonel  Gardner  continued  to  sign  checks 
until  31st  March,  1833,  to  close  the  quarter's  concerns. 

Question  .59.  In  whose  handwriting  are  these  endorsements  on  contract 
'No.  951,  in  these  words:  '•  The  increased  service  stipulated  in  the  contrast 
was  directed  by  the  Postmaster  General  from  the  beginning,  for  which  he 
is  entitled  to  the  additional  sum  of  thirteen  thousand  dollars  per  year;  and 
for  the  second  mail,  during  the  winter,  the  farther  sum  of  fil'teen  hundre<l 
dollars  per  year.  For  an  express  mail,  by  order  of  the  Postmaster  General,, 
three  thousand  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per  year." 

Answer  59.  They  are  in  mine. 

Question  60.   When  were  they  made? 

Answer  60.  I  do  not  know;  but  1  presume  about  the  time  of  the  com- 
mencement of  the  service  under  the  contract.  I  do  not  know  that  they 
were  both  made  at  the  same  time;  but  I  presume  the  latter  was  made  a  little 
after  the  first,  from  the  appearance.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection  of  the 
orders  given  to  make  these  endorsements,  or  of  the  circumstances,  except 
that  the  Postmaster  General  did  direct  these  improvements  to  be  made  and 
the  endorsements  on  the  contract.  I  do  not  recollect  if  those  improvements 
were  verbal  or  in  writing.  I  cannot  tell  if  there  are  any  papers  or  memo- 
randums showing  these  orders.  Those  papers,  if  any,  are  with  Major  Hobbie- 
I  Jiave  no  recollection  if  there  were,  nor  should  I  be  likely  to  recollect  it  if 
there  were.  1  have  no  particular  circumstance  whici)  could  bring  it  to  my 
recollection  when  those  particular  entries  were  made. 

Question  61.  In  whose  handwriting  are  the  two  memorandums  on  the 
schedule  annexed  lo  the  contract,  one  dated  14th  May,  1832,  the  other  25th 
February,  1833. 

Answer  61.  I  cannot  tell,  nor  have  I  any  recollection  by  whose  orders 
they  were,  nor  the  time  of  making,  further  than  the  date.  I  do  not  know- 
when  this  schedule  was  made;  but  presume  it  was  made  out  at  the  com- 
iaencement  of  the  contract.  The  schedule  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Thomas 
Addison,  I  think. 

January  11,  1835. 

O.   B.   BROWN. 

Question  62.  In  the  report  of  the  Postmaster  General  to  the  President, 
dated  29th  Nov.,  1834,  the  balance  of  debt  existing  against  the  department 
on  1st  July,  1834,  is  stated  to  be  $268,092  74,  and  in  the  report  made  by  him 
to  this  committee,  the  balance  of  debt  stated  to  be  against  the  department  on 
said  1st  July,  1834,  is  5&25S,211  36.  How  can  this  discrepancy  be  accounted 
for  or  reconciled? 

Answer  62.    The  statement  presented  t  j  the  committee  is  made  from  an 
exact  list  of  the  balances  of  the  several  accounts  standing  open  on  the  books 
ot  the  department 
34 


r  86  ]  S66 

The  report  to  the  President  was  made  from  the  general  itatement  of  the 
accounts  exhibited  quarterly.  In  that  general  statement,  if  any  one  error 
had  been  passed  uncorrected  from  1789  to  the  present  day,  it  would  still 
leave  the  statement  imperfect;  and  I  was  informed  by  the  bookkeepers,  Mr. 
Dyer  and  others,  more  than  twelve  years  ago,  there  was  not  an  agreement 
between  the  lists  of  balances,  as  taken  from  time  to  time,  and  the  general 
statement  of  the  accounts.  I  inquired  of  them  if  they  could  not  be  recon- 
ciled. They  told' me  that  it  had  long  existed,  and  could  not  be  reconciled 
without  an  immensity  of  labor,  which  could  not  be  bestowed  upon  it. 

The  statement  from  the  list  of  balances  is  certainly  the  most  accurate. 

Question  63.  Why  was  not  the  statement  reported  to  the  President  takeriv 
from  the  list  of  balances? 

Answer  63.  The  annual  report  to  the  President  is  made  to  exhibit  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  revenues  and  expenditures  of  the  department  from  year  to 
year,  and  appears  therefore  always  to  have  been  made  in  conformity  with 
the  general  statements  from  which  they  are  made;  and  when  the  last  annual 
report  was  made  to  the  President,  the  recapitulation  of  the  list  of  balances 
was  not  completed,  or  I  presume  the  President  would  have  been  informed 
of  the  difference. 

Question  64.  Have  you  at  any  time  received  any  other  salary,  pay,  or 
emolument  from  the  Post  Office  Department  than  that  of  your  pay,  as  chief 
clerk,  of  1,700  dollars  per  annum,  since  you  became  chief  clerk?  If  you 
have,  state  what  it  was. 

Answer  64.  I  have,  besides  that,  received  500  dollars  per  annum  for  su- 
perintending the  post  office  building  and  premises,  and  nothing  more;  so^ 
that  my  whole  salary  has  been  2,200  dollars  per  annum. 

Question  65.  Where  is  this  additional  allowance  to  you  to  be  found  in 
the  accounts  of  the  department? 

Answer  65.  It  does  not  come  into  the  accounts  of  the  department,  but 
comes  under  the  same  head  of  appropriations  by  Congress  for  salaries  of 
messengers  and  contingencies.  This  sum  is  not  paid  out  of  the  post  office 
funds,  but  is  received  from  the  treasury. 

Question  66.  Is  there  any  account  made  out  by  the  department  by  which 
the  public  can  know  that  that  salary  exists? 

Answer  66.  There  is.  It  is  presented  regularly  at  the  treasury  for  settle- 
ment with  its  proper  vouchers,  the  same  as  other  accounts  of  moneys  drawn 
under  appropriation. 

Question  67.  At  what  time  was  that  allowance  first  made  to  you,  and  how 
Jong  has  it  continued? 

Answer  67.   As  nearly  as  I  recollect,  since  the  fall  of  1829. 

Question  68.  What  was  the  origin  of  this  allowance,  or  had  any  other 
person  been  allowed  any  sum  for  similar  services  before  that  time? 

Answer  68.  I  do  not  know  that  such  allowance  had  ever  before  been 
made.  A  similar  allowance  had  been  made  for  the  other  executive  build- 
ings, and  the  Postmaster  General  asked  it  of  Congress  for  this,  and  Congress^ 
granted  it. 

Question  69.  Can  you  lay  your  hand  upon,  or  refer  us  to  the  application 
of  the  Postmaster  General  for  this  allowance,  and  the  act  of  Congress  allow- 
ing the  same? 

Answer  69.  The  application  of  the  Postmaster  General  is  contained  in 
his  estimate  for  the  expenses  of  the  department  for  the  year  1830,  in  a  lette^ 


267  E  86  ] 

addressed,  dated  Nov.  20,  1829,  to  T.  L.  Smith,  register  ot  t.'^'  treasury. 

In  that  letter,  besides  the  usual  estimates,  there  are  these  items: 

'^^  For  public  buildings  and  premises           .             .             -  §500 

"  For  making  up  blanks    -             -             -             .             -  400 

"For  two  watchmen         -             -            .             >             -  500 

' '  For  a  laborer     ------  240 


Making     -  -  -  -  -  -  -  g  1,640 

Of  this  amount  I  received  no  more  than  the  500  dollars. 

In  the  appropriation  bill  passed  18th  March,  1830,  there  is  the  following 
clause — 

"For  superintendency  of  the  buildings,  making  up  blanks,  and  compen- 
sation to  two  watchmen  and  one  laborer,  1640  dollars," — covering  the  above 
estimate. 

Question  70.  Do  you  recollect  an  inquiry  made  by  a  committee  of  the 
Senate  of  the  Postmaster  General,  as  to  this  or  some  other  annual  allowance 
to  you  in  1830-1831,  and  did  you  draw  up  the  answer  to  that  inquiry? 

Answer  70.  I  do  not  distinctly  recollect  the  inquiry;  but  I  find  in  a  re- 
port (printed)  of  the  Postmaster  General  to  the  committee  of  the  Senate, 
reported  to  the  Senate  3d  March,  1831,  in  answer  to  several  resolutions  of 
the  committee  of  the  Senate,  the  following  clause: 

*' My  chief  clerk  has  not  received  any  additional  compensation  for  his 
services  as  such;  but  from  Oct.  1st  to  Nov.  15lh,  1829,  there  was  a  vacancy 
in  the  office  of  one  of  the  assistants,  during  which  time,  amounting  to  46 
days,  he  was  acting  assistant,  and  performed  the  duties  of  that  office;  and 
for  that  period,  and  that  period  only,  he  received  the  compensation  prescribed 
by  law  for  the  same." 

I  have  no  recollection  who  drew  that  clause;  but  the  Postmaster  General 
says  he  drew  it  himself,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he  did. 

Question  71.  When  the  contract  was  made  in  the  fall  of  the  year  1831 
with  Reeslde,  Slay  maker,  &  Co.,  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail  from 
Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  was  there  any  parole  contract  or  agreement  con- 
cerning the  transportation  of  the  newspapers  and  packages,  which  does  not 
appear  in  the  written  contract? 

Answer  71.  It  was  at  that  time  the  distinct  understanding  of  the  Post- 
master General  and  myself,  for  we  conversed  on  the  subject,  that  newspa- 
pers and  other  printed  matter,  which  constitute  the  great  burden  of  the  mail, 
should  be  transported  by  the  slower  line,  which  ran  through  in  about  the 
time  that  the  most  rapid  mail  had  ever  before  run;  and  their  more  rapid 
line  was  designed  principally  to  convey  the  letters  from  the  east  for  Pitts- 
burg, and  all  places  north  and  west  of  that  place,  in  the  shortest  possible 
time. 

Question  72.   Was  this  understanding  communicated  to  the  contractors? 

Answer  72,  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  communicated  in  writing  to  them, 
but  it  was  the  subject  of  conversation  with  Mr.  Reeside  at  the  time. 

Question  73.  Was  it  a  subject  of  conversation  with  Mr.  Reeside  before 
he  put  in  his  improved  bid,  which  was  accepted. 

Answer  73.  That  I  do  not  recollect. 

Question  74.  Do  you  not  consider,  in  the  department,  an  accepted  bid  as 
z  contract? 

Answer  74.  No,  we  do  not;  we  consider  it  the  incipient  state  of  a  con- 
tract, but  not  a  contract,  because  no  security  is  given. 


[  86  ]  268 

Question  75,  Do  you  not  consider  the  contract  as  bound  by  his  accepted 
bid? 

Answer  75.  Unquestionably  we  do. 

Question  7G.  Then  is  not  every  thing  you  concede  to  him  by  conversa- 
tion or  otherwise,  after  his  bid  is  accepted,  the  same,  precisely,  8S  if  you 
made  the  concession  after  the  contract  vvas  executed? 

Answer  70.  No;  because  after  acceptance  many  explanations  may  be  re- 
quired as  to  the  construction  of  the  hid;  the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  parties 
in  making  the  biil,  and  in  accepting  the  bid,  are  often  required  to  be 
ascertained  before  the  consummation  of  tiie  rontract. 

Question  77.  Are  )'ou  in  the  habit  of  accepting  bids  that  are  so  uncer- 
tain that  they  require  parole  explanations  before  the  contract  is  executed, 
and  are  you  in  the  habit  of  permitting  the  subsequent  explanation  of  the 
party  to  he  incorporated  in  the  contract? 

Answer  77.  The  Postmaster  General  himself  makes  all  acceptances,  and 
his  rule  is  to  accept  that  bid  which  he  believes  to  be  best  for  the  department 
and  for  the  public;  and  if  such  bid  should  require  explanation,  he  would 
not  forego  its  benefit  because  it  required  such  explaYialion.  Such  appears 
to  be  the  rule  which  governs  the  Postmaster  General,  but  he  can  himself 
beat  answer  whether  he  strictly  adheres  to  it. 

Question  78.  Is  it  your  habit  to  draw  the  contract,  or  haife  it  drawn,  con- 
formably to  the  accepted  bid,  or  do  you  make  it  out  according  to  the  expla- 
nation of  the  contractor  of  what  he  intended  in  making  his  bid? 

Answer  78.  The  clerk  v/ho  fills  the  contract  commonly  tills  it  from 
the  accepted  hid;  but  if  any  important  variation  is  made  in  the  manner|of 
running  and  the  compensaiion  to  be  received,  and  such  variation  is  reported 
to  tliC  clerk  before  he  fills  up  the  contract,  it  is  commonly  entered  in  the 
filling  of  the  contract. 

Question  79.  Was  it  before  or  after  the  annunciation  of  the  bids,  in  1S31, 
that  you  had  those  conversations  with  the  Postmaster  General  about  the 
mode  of  carrying  letters  and  papers  on  the  route  from  Philadelphia  to  Pitts- 
huvo-,  mentioned  by  you  in  your  answer  to  a  former  interrogatory? 

Ansv.-er  71).   I  do  not  recollect;  but  it  was  not  far  from  the  same  lime. 

Question  SO.  In  what  time  was  the  mail  in  facL  carried  on  that  route,  in 
the  nioj-t  rapid  line  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  from  the  1st  of  April 
to  the  1st  of  October,  1831? 

Answer  80.  When  I  speak  of  the  time  of  carrying  the  mail  I  speak  of 
the  contract  time;  for  if  it  was  carried  more  rapidly  it  would  not  likely  be 
reported,  and  I  do  not  know  it. 

Question  81.  Do  you  not  know,  and  did  you  not  know  in  the  fall  of 
1831,  that  the  mail  was  carried  from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  in  one  of 
the  lines  of  coaches  in  about  sixty  hours,  more  or  less,  from  the  1st  of  April 
of  that  year? 

Answer  SI.  Ido  not  now  recollect  what  I  knew  then;  but  if  it  was  regularly 
carried  with  greater  rapidity  than  the  contract  required,  I  did  not  know  it. 

Question  82.  Did  you  about  the  time  of  the  taking  effect  of  the  present 
contract,  advise  the  postmaster  of  Philadelphia  of  the  parole  agreement  be- 
tween you  and  Mr.  Reesidc  about  the  transportation  of  newspapers,  and 
direct  him  to  hold  them  hack,  and  put  them  into  the  slow  line. 

Answer  82.  I  suppose  between  me  and  Mr.  Reeside  means  between  the 
department  and  Mr.  Reeside;  but  I  do  not  recollect  at  this  time  any  com- 
munication made  to  the  postmaster  at  Philadelphia   on  the  subject,    nor 


269  [  86   j 

should  I  be  likely  to  remember  at  this  period  if  such  communication  was 
made. 

Question  83»,  Can  you  answer  from  the  books  whether  it  was  made? 

Answer  S3.  I  can  examine  whether  such  communication  was  recorded. 

Question  84.  Your  answer  seems  to  imply  that  such  communications 
were  made  without  being  put  on  record;  is  it  so? 

Answer  84.  No  such  implication  is  intended;  such  letters  were  always 
intended  to  be  recorded;  but  whether  the  clerk,  who  was  to  record  them, 
always  performed  liis  duty  I  do  not  j)retend  to  say,  though  I  presume 
he  did. 

Question  85.  If  any  communication  were  made  from  the  department  to 
the  postmaster  at  Philadelphia,  between  the  4th  of  October,  1831,  and  1st  of 
Januai'y,  1S33.  directing  in  which  line  of  stages  he  should  send  the  news- 
papers, and  other  heavy  matter,  intended  for  Pittsburg,  or  directing  any 
change  in  the  line  in  which  it  was  sent,  produce  it  to  the  committee- 
Answer  So.    I  have  searched  the  books  and  can  find  none. 

Question  86.  Slate  the  reasons,  and  produce  the  vouchers,  for  making  an 
extra  allowance  of  Si, 595  to  James  Reeside,  on  the  Baltimore  and  Cham- 
bersburg  route,  since  1st  of  January,  1S32? 

Answer  86.  The  route  from  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg  was  advertised 
with  the  following  schedule:  — 

<'  Leave  Baltimore  every  day  at  4  A.  M. 

Arrive  at  Chambersburg  same  day  by  9  P.  M. 

Leave  Chambersburg  every  day  at  2  A.  M. 

Arrive  at  Baltimore  same  day  by  8  P.  M.'" 

The  proposal  of  Mr.  Reeside  I  cannot  now  get,  because  I  am  told  it  is  in 
the  hands  of  this  committee,  but  its  purport,  as  nearly  as  I  recollect,  was 
this:  "To  carry  the  mail,  as  advertised,  at  $1,900  per  annum;  or  to  delay 
the  departure  from  Baltimore  till  after  the  arrival  of  the  steandjoat  mail  from 
Philadelphia,  and  arrive  at  Chambersburg  the  same  day  in  time  (o  connect 
with  the  mail  from  Philadelphia  for  Pittsburg,  for  S3, 495  per  annum."  The 
proposal  was  accepted  at  $1,900  as  advertised;  the  Postmaster  General  re- 
serving the  alternative  of  substituting  the  other  if  he  should  at  any  time 
think  proper.  The  contract  was  tilled  under  date  of  15th  October,  1831, 
at  §1,900  per  annum.  The  following  letter  I  find  on  record,  dated  Decem- 
ber 29,  1831. 

Post  Office  Depaktment, 

December  29,  1831 . 
Sir:  To  form  a  connexion  with  the  rapid  line  at  Cham.bers'burg,  so  as  to 
run  from  Baltimore  to  Pittsburg  in  fifly-two  hours,  you  are  requested  so  to 
expedite  on  route  No.  13SS,  as  to  arrive  at  Chambersburg  from  Baltimore 
by  3  P.  M . 

VV.  T.   BARRY. 
James  Reeside,  Esq.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

On  the  same  date  1  find  on  tlie  schedule  of  the  contract  the  following 
alteration: — 

"Leave  Baltimore  daily  at  1  A.  M. 

Arrive  at  Chambersburg  same  day  by  3  P.  M. 

Leave  Chambersburg  daily  at  2  or  3  A.  M.  - 

Arrive  at  Baltimore  same  day  by  5  P.  M." 


[  86  ]  270 

This  alteration  required  the  running  to  conform  to  the  proposition  for 
^3,495  per  annum,  and  it  was  on  this  that  the  additional  allowance  appears 
to  have  been  made. 

Question  87.   What  is  the  distance  from  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg? 

Answer  S7.  It  is  stated  to  be  seventy-seven  miles  on  our  route  book. 

Question  SS.  At  the  date  the  above  order  was  given  to  Reeside,  at  what 
time  did  the  fast  Pittsburg  line  arrive  at  Chambersburg  from  Philadelphia? 

Answer  88.  The  fast  mail  under  the  winter  arrangement,  it  being  cus- 
tomary to  give  longer  time  in  winter  than  in  summer,  was  required  to  leave 
Philadelphia  at  two  A,  M.  and  arrive  at  Pittsburg  the  third  day  by  eight 
P.  M.,  making  sixty-six  hours.  There  was  no  time  set  for  its  arrival  at 
Chambersburg;  but,  Chambersburg  being  about  midway  between  Philadel- 
phia and  Pittsburg,  it  was  computed  that  it  would  arrive  at  Chambersburg 
the  second  day,  for  the  passengers  to  dine  while  the  postmaster  was  distri- 
buting the  mail,  and  that  the  arrival  from  Baltimore,  at  three  in  the  after- 
noon, would  be  just  in  time  to  connect  with  it  before  its  departure  for 
Pittsburg. 

On  the  26lh  of  May,  1832,  the"  more  rapid  mail  was  directed  to  leave 
Philadelphia  at  three  P.  M.  and  arrive  at  Pittsburg  in  fifty-two  hours.  In 
this  arrangement  it  was  calculated  that  it  would  arrive  at  Chambersburg 
from  three  to  five  in  the  afternoon  of  next  day,  so  that  the  arrival  of  the 
mail  from  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  at  the  same  time,  would  be  neces- 
sary to  perfect  the  connexion.  I  find  on  the  letter  book,  under  date  of  the 
5th  of  July,  1832:— 

Post  Office  Department,  July  5,  1832. 
The  department  is  advised  that  you  frequently  leave  Baltimore  for  Cham~ 
bersburg  without  awaiting  the  arrival  of  the  afternoon  mail  from  this  city. 
This  mail  carries  all  the  letters,  &c.  to  Pittsburg,   Detroit,  &c  ,  and   the 
breach  of  connexion  at  Baltimore  has  the  effect  to  delay  them  one  day. 
You  will,  therefore,  in  no  event  leave  Baltimore  till  after  the  arrival  and 
distribution  of  this  mail.     The  subjoined  schedule  of  your  contract,  if  ob- 
served, will  entirely  rectify  the  evil. 
Leave  Baltimore  daily  at  1*  A.  M. 
Arrive  at  Chambersburg  daily  at  3  A.  M. 
Arrive  at  Baltimore  same  day  by  5  P.  M. 

0.  B.  BROWN. 
Messrs.  James  Reeside  &  Co., 

.  Baltimore,  Maryland. 

From  this  letter  it  appears  that  the  delay  of  the  departure  from  Baltimore 
was  necessary  to  form  a  connexion  with  the  mail  from  Washington  City, 
and  the  arrival  at  Chambersburg  from  3  to  5  P.  M,  was  necessary  to  form 
the  connexion  there  with  the  mail  from  Pittsburg.  I  find  the  letter  of 
12th  September,  1832,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract. 

[extract.] 
Post  Office  Department,  September  12,  1832. 

The  following  schedule  must  hereafter  be  invariably  observed: — Leave 
Baltimore  daily  at  7  A.  M.,  arrive  at  Chambersburg  same  day  by  8  P.  M. 

*  We  do  not  require  you  to  delay  till  1  A.  M.,  but  are  willing  you  shall  depart  as  soon  as 
the  mail  from  this  place  can  be  distributed. 


271  [  86  ] 

Leave  Chambersburg  daily  at  (8  or  9  after  mail  arrives  from  Pittsburg) 
3  A.  M.      Arrive  at  Baltimore  same  day  by  (in  13  hours)  4  P.  M. 

The  mails  from  Baltimore  and  Washington  City  to  Pittsburg  will  be 
sent  by  way  of  Hagerstown  and  McConnellsburg,  which  will  give  them 
the  greatest  celerity.  On  their  arrival  at  McConnellsburg  they  must  be 
put  into  the  Good  Intent,  or  the  most  rapid  line,  which  must  always  con- 
nect with  the  line  from  Hagerstown  at  that  point. 

(Signed)  0.  B.  BROWN. 

James  Reeside  and  Co. 

It  appears  from  this  that  the  mails  from  Washington  City  and  Baltimore 
for  Pittsburg  and  places  beyond  Piu^uurg  were  no  longer  sent  on  the 
route  from  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg,  but  from  Baltimore  by  Hagerstown 
and  McConnellsburg,  at  which  last  place  they  connected  with  the  most 
rapid  line  for  Pittsburg.  The  mail  therefore  from  Baltimore  to  Chambers- 
burg appears  to  have  been  made  to  connect  with  the  slower  line  from  Phi- 
ladelphia to  Pittsburg,  its  object  being  mainly  to  carry  letters  and  papers 
for  the  Chambersburg  distribution,  and  for  the  intermediate  offices  between 
Chambersburg  and  Pittsburg,  at  all  of  which  offices  the  slower  line  de- 
livered and  received  mails;  but  the  more  ra{)id  line  delivered  and  received 
mails  only  at  the  county  towns. 

The  schedule  for  the  slower  line  was:  "  Leave  Philadelphia  at  4  A.  M., 
arrive  at  Pittsburg  in  80  hours." 

Chambersburg  being  about  midway,  it  was  concluded  that  it  would  arrive 
at  Chambersburg  in  40  hours  from  IMiiladelphia,  which  would  be  8  P.  M.; 
and  therefore  the  mail  was  directed  to  leave  Baltimore  at  7  A.  M.,  which 
was  after  the  arrival  of  the  great  mail  from  Washington  City,  and  to  arrive 
at  Chambersburg  at  8  P.  M.,  to  connect  with  the  slower  Philadelphia  mail 
for  Pittsburg,  which  would  make  the  whole  time  of  running  from  Baltimore 
to  Pittsburg  53  hours,  and  supply  every  intermediate  office  bet'veen  tlie 
two  places;  which  was  believed  to  be  a  better  arrangement  than  the  former, 
which  required  it  to  run  through  in  52  hours,  without  supplying  any  of 
the  intermediate  offices  between  Chambersburg  and  Pittsburg  except  the 
county  towns. 

Question  89.  Was  this  caculation  about  uniting  with  the  slower  line  at 
Chambersburg  made  at  the  time  this  order  was  made,  or  was  it  made  by 
you  yesterday  and  this  morning? 

Answer  89.   I  state  the  facts  as  they  then  existed. 
Question  90.  Did  that  mail  in  fact  unite  Avith  the  slow  line  as  you  have  stated? 

Answer  90.  I  do  not  recollect  ever  to  have  heard  to  the  contrary. 

Question  91.  Do  you  believe  that  the  slow  line  did  in  fact  take  40  hours 
from  Philadelphia  to  Chambersburg  in  the  usual  course  of  things,  so  as  not  to 
arrive  at  Chambersburg  before  S  o'clock  in  the  evening  of  the  second  day? 

Answer  91.  I  have  no  evidence  to  the  contmry,  and  do  not  recollect  ever 
to  have  heard  any  thing  to  the  contrary,  and  therefore  have  no  reason  to 
believe  to  the  contrary. 

Question  92.  Do  you  believe  from  your  knowledge  of  the  route  from 
Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  that  it  takes  that  mail  as  long  to  run  from  Phila- 
delphia to  Chambersburg  as  it  does  to  run  from  Chambersburg  to  Pittsburg. 

Answer  92.  I  have  never  travelled  either  of  those  routes,  and  have  never 
made  any  inquiry  with  a  view  to  settle  that  point,  and  therefore  have  no 
belief  about  it.  , 


[  86  ]  272 

Question  93.  If  you  have  no  opinion  or  belief  on  that  subject,  how  could 
you  make  the  estimate  from  the  SO  hours  which  the  slow  line  was  to  take 
from  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  that  it  would  take  just  40  hours  to  Cham- 
bersburj;,  and  therefore  direct  the  Baltimore  mail  to  meet  it  at  Chambers- 
burg  to  go  on  in  that  mail  to  Pittsbure.? 

Answer  93.  The  estimate  was  made  from  the  distance  alone;  and  if  the 
mail  from  Philadelphia  should  arrive  at  Chambersburg  an  hour  earlier,  that 
time,  it  was  jjresumed,  would  be  occupied  by  the  postmaster  at  Chambersburg 
in  the  distribution  of  the  mail;  and  it  was  also  confidently  believed  that  the 
interest  of  the  contractors  on  account  of  their  passengers  would  in  this,  as  in 
other  cases,  be  a  sufficient  inducement  for  them  to  maintain  the  connexion, 
though  at  any  time  there  might  be  the  variation  of  an  hour  or  two  with  either 
line. 

Question  94.  Do  you  believe  that  the  Baltimore  mail  did  in  any  one  in- 
stance arrive  at  Chambersburg  in  time  to  connect  with  that  line  from  Phila- 
delphia in  the  manner  above  stated? 

Answer  94.   I  know  of  no  evidence  to  the  contrary. 

Question  95.  Will  you  state  your  belief  whether  it  ever  did  or  did  not. 
connect  with  that  line  at  Chambersburg  in  the  manner  stated. 

Answer  95  I  had  or  remember  of  no  evidence  to  the  contrary,  and  there- 
fore never  believed  to  the  contrary. 

Question  9G.  Did  you  ever  have  any  evidence  of  the  fact  that  it  did  so 
connect,  and  do  you  affirmatively  believe  that  it  did  so  connect. 

Answer  96.  When  a  connexion  of  that  kind  is  directed,  we  take  it  for 
granted  that  that  connexion  is  maintained,  unless  the  contrary  is  reported;, 
and  therefore  I  did  believe  that,  it  did  so  connect,  and  should  have  believed 
so  to  the  present  moment,  JMit  for  the  information  given  me  a  few  days  ago 
by  an  honorable  member  of  the  committee,  in  presence  of  the  committee^, 
but  since  the  4th  of  Marcii,  1S33,  having  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  OiBce 
of  Mail  Contracts,  v.  batever  information  niay  have  been  given  to  the  depart- 
ment I  have  not  seen  subsequent  to  that  time. 

Question  97.  Was  your  opinion  that  those  lines  did  connect  as  above  sta- 
ted, founded  solely  on  the  fact  that  it  had  been  so  ordered? 

Answer  97.  The  furangement of  the  schedule  iiaving  been  made  wilji  that, 
view,  in  the  belief  that  it  would  produce  that  effect,  and  that  the  interest  of 
the  contractors  would  require  them  to  maintain  it,  the  subject  no  longer 
dwelt  on  my- mind;  and  I  doubt  whether  I  ever  should  afterwards  have 
thought  of  a  disconnexion,  or  that  my  mind  would  ever  have  been  drawn  to 
the  subject,  unless  some  communication  nr  inquiries  should  lead  me  to  it. 

Question  98.  Was  it  the  cose  that  during  the  first  winter  arrangement 
for  the  rypid  line  between  Philadelphia  and  Pittsburg,  that  the  mail  which 
left  Baltimore,  say  on  Tuesday,  at  1  A,  M.,  was  to  fall  in  at  Chambersburg 
with  that  which  left  Philadelphia  on  Monday,  at  2  A.  M.,  and  the  mail 
matter  carried  by  both  go  on  together  to  Pittsburg? 

Answer  98.   It  is  the  case  that  it  "was  so  to  have  done. 

Question  99.  Do  you  know  or  believe  that  it  was  in  fact  ever  so  done 
in  any  single  instance? 

Answer  99.  I  did  believe  it  was,  and  do  not  recollect  ever  to  have 
doubted  it  until  I  had  the  information,  before  named,  in  the  committee 
room. 

Qiiestion  100.  The  committee  have  received  a  copy  of  a  letter  purport- 
ing to  be  signed  by  you  and  addressed  to  James  Reeside,  present,  dated  9th 
October,  1829,  in  v/hich  you  say,  <<  from  a  strict  examination  of  the  docu- 


273  [  86  3 

ments  and  testimony  of  the  extra  expense  incurred  by  you  on  route  No. 
231,  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  in  so  expediting  the  mail  as  to  carry  it 
both  ways  in  14  hours,  including  the  expense  of  crossing;  the  Hudson  in  the 
night,  it  appears  that  the  sum  of  0000  dollars  a  year  will  nearly  cover  it.^'' 
Will  you  produce  to  the  committee  the  documents  and  testimony  above 
referred  to?  ^ 

Answer  100.   I  have  had  a  search  made,  and  haVe  not  been  able  to  find 
them. 


[Doc.  No.  97.] 

New  York,  November  7,  1834. 

COL.    JOSEPH  DODD. 

Question  I.  How  long  have  you  been  employed  in  the  post  office  in  thia 
city,  and  in  what  capacity? 

Answer  1.  Since  1817  I  have  carried  the  mail  between  the  office  here  and 
Jersey  City. 

Question  2.  What  mails  have  been  carried  during  the  years  1832  and 
1S33,  and  what  have  been  the  hoursof  arrival  and  departure  of  each  between 
New  York  and  Philadelphia? 

Answer  2.  1st.  The  great  southern  mail  arrives  at  6  o'clock  A.  M.,  and 
departs  at  4  o'clock  p.  m.,  daily.  This  has  been  the  case  since  April  last. 
Previous  to  that  date  it  departed  at  3  o'clock  v.  m.,  and  arrived  at  6  A.  M. 
I.  am  a  contractor  for  carryitig  this  mail  to  and  from  Jersey  City.  In  1817 
I  made  a  contract  with  the  department  to  carry  it  for  500  dollars.  This  con- 
tinued until  Reeside  became  a  contractor  to  carry  the  mail  from  Philadel- 
phia to  New  York,  when  he  allowed  me  for  the  same  service  the  sum  of  600 
dollars.  In  1832  I  again  became  a  contractor  with  the  department  at  the 
rate  of  800  dollars,  which  I  still  receive  from  ih.e  department. 

2d.  The  Phdadelphia  morning  mail,  which  leaves  at  6  o'clock  A.  M. ,  and 
is  carried  in  the  boat  fo  Philadelphia.  It  has  been  carried  in  steamboats 
ever  since  Mr.  Iu'eeside  was  a  contractor,  except  when  the  boats  do  not  run 
in  the  winter  season;  then  it  is  carried  by  a  line  of  stages  from  Jersey  City. 
He  then  runs  three  lines  of  stages,  one  at  6  in  the  morning,  one  at  10  a.  m., 
and  one  at  4  o'clock  p.  M.  This  mail  is  carried  in  the  morning  line,  and 
the  great  southern  mail  in  the  4  o'clock  line.  There  has  been  no  change  in 
the  hours  of  departure  in  this  mail  for  two  or  three  years  past;  for  the  hours 
of  arrival  it  depends  upon  the  boats,  and  upon  the  line  of  stages  when  the 
boats  do  not  run.  With  this  mail  I  have  nothing  to  do  as  a  contractor.  Mr. 
Reeside  pays  a  carman,  Mr.  Amos,  for  carrying  it  over  to  Jersey  City,  or 
to  the  boat.  It  is  always  carried  in  the  ordinary  lines  of  boats  aad  stages. 
Mr.  Reeside  does  not  run  any  line  of  stages  through  while  the  boats  are  run- 
ning. I  suppose  the  average  time  of  the  boats'  lying  by,  each  year,  between 
New  York  and  Philadelphia,  is  about  throe  months. 

3d.  At  10  o'clock  A.  ar.,  eacb  day,  a  newspaper  mail  is  sent  by  the  boats 
when  tiiey  are  running,  and  by  the  stages  when  they  are  not.  It  contains  no 
letters,  but  carries  newspapers,  pamphlets,  &c.  For  its  arrival  and  dej)ar- 
ture  it  depends  upon  the  lines  of  steamboats  and  stages  in  the  same  way  as 
the  morning  mail  does.     It  is  usually  very  heavy. 

4th.   About  a  month  since  a  mail  from  New  York,  thro'.igh  Newark,  New 
Brunswick,  Princeton,  and  Trenton,  and  to  Bristol  and  Philadelphia,  was 
35 


86  ]  274 


started,  which  is  carried  by  Mr,  Reeside,  It  leaves  New  York  at  about  half 
past  three,  but  I  do  not  know  at  what  hour  it  arrives  at  Philadelphia.  There 
is  also  a  daily  return  mail  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  which  reaches 
New  York  about  six.  I  believe  it  is  carried  in  two  horse  carriages,  but  am 
not  sure.  Previous  to  this  establishment  of  this  mail  there  was  a  regular 
connected  line  of  carriages  for  a  mail  on  this  route,  which  run  backward  and 
forward  daily,  carried  by  Mr.  Reeside. 

Question  3.  What  is  the  difference  between  the  route  and  mail  as  they 
existed  previous  to  the  late  arrangement  made  by  Mr.  Reeside,  and  as  they 
now  exist? 

Answer  3.  The  Trenton  mail  has  been  taken  from  that  route,  and  is  now 
sent  to  Bordentown,  and  thence  to  Trenton.  No  other  difference  that  I 
know  of. 

Question  4,  Do  you  know  the  reason  why  the  Trenton  mail  has  been  ta- 
ken from  that  daily  route  and  is  now  sent  by  Bordentown? 

Answer  4.  I  believe  it  was  at  the  request  of  the  postmistress;  I  know  of 
no  other. 

Question  5.  Does  Mr.  Reeside  now  carry  the  mail  from  Bordentown  to 
Trenton? 

Answer  5.  I  understand  it  so.  There  has  been  a  regular  daily  line  run- 
ning both  ways  between  the  two  cities,  through  Newark,  Nevv  Brunswick, 
Princeton,  Trenton,  and  Bristol,  to  Philadelphia  by  land,  for  the  last  two  or 
three  years,  at  all  times  carried  by  Mr.  Reeside.  I  know  of  no  other  regular 
mail  line  between  the  two  cities,  except  those  which  have  been  mentioned. 

Winter  before  last  there  was  an  express  mail  run  by  Mr.  Reeside  between 
the  two  cities,  commencing  about  the  first  of  Januaiy,  and  continuing  until 
about  the  middle  of  March.  In  the  first  place  he  undertook  it  in  a  little 
wsgoQ  with  two  horses;  he  found  he  could  not  get  along  with  that, and  then 
run  it  with  two  pair  of  saddlebags  on  horses,  a  saddlebag  on  each  horse,  with, 
light  riders.  The  hour  of  starling  at  New  York  was  10  o'clock  a.  m.  The 
hour  at  Philadelphia  I  do  not  know.  It  arrived  here  from  ten  to  one  at 
night.  At  first,  when  the  roads  were  good,  they  sometimes  arrived  at  nine 
p.  M.  One  end  of  the  saddlebags  was  filled  with  letters  mailed  up,  and  the 
other  with  newspapers.  The  mailed  letters  were  altogether  from  Washing- 
ton; sometimes  when  mails  arrived  at  Washington  in  time,  letters  south  of 
that  were  sent.  The  newspapers  were  for  the  editors  in  New  York  only. 
The  weight  of  the  bags  was  usually  from  thirty  to  forty  pounds  each,  inclu- 
ding the  weight  of  the  bags.  The  bags  were  made  of  stout  leather.  I  re- 
ceived these  bags  at  Jersey  City,  and  brought  them  over  to  the  ofiice,  and  was 
paid  for  this  service  by  the  department;  the  amount  I  do  not  recollect.  The 
other  mails  before  mentioned  were  all  running  at  the  same  time.  This  was 
in  addition  to  them. 

There  was  another  express,  which  was  private,  run  at  the  same  time  by 
the  Journal  of  Commerce.     If  I  recollect  right,  Reeside's  arrived  first. 

Question  6.  Have  any  of  these  mails,  and  if  any,  which,  been  guarded 
within  the  last  two  years,  and  in  what  way,  and  for  how  long  a  time? 

Answer  6.  Mr.  Reeside's  has  two  guards,  one  going  and  one  coming,  and 
has  constantly  had  them  since  the  contract.  The  one  leaves  here  to  day, 
the  other  leaves  Philadelphia — one  each  way,  and  go  through  from  city  to 
city  with  the  great  southern  mail,  which  leaves  Marketfield  street  at  4,  by  the 
boat. 


275  [  86   1 

The  southern  mail  goes  to  Amboy  by  water,  thence  it  goes  by  the  railroad 
to  Philadelphia  by  a  guard,  I  mean  a  person  who  watches  the  mail  bags  du- 
ring their  transportation,  and  sees  to  their  removal  from  one  conveyance  to 
another.     The  guard  goes  regularly,  or  at  least  I  start  him  regularly. 

There  was  a  time,  five  years  ago,  before  this  contract,  the  guards  met  at 
Kingston,  and  each  returned  again  to  where  he  started.  It  was  changed  by 
Reeside.  The  mail  was  guarded  a  part  of  the  time  by  the  former  conwrac- 
tors.  I  do  not  know  what  Reeside  pays  the  guards.  They  are  armed.  I 
am  not  aware  of  their  being  suspended  at  any  time.  None  of  the  other  mails 
are  guarded.  The  mail  which  goes  by  land  through  Newark,  &c.,  to  Phila- 
delphia by  night,  is  not  guarded. 

JOSEPH  DODD. 


[Doc.  No.  98.] 

No.  951,  pr.  $800— S200. 

This  contract,  made  the  twentieth  day  of  December,  in  the  year  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  thirty-one,  between  Joseph  Dodd,  of  New  -York, 
N.  Y.,  contractor  for  carrying  the  mails  of  the  United  Stales,  of  one  part, 
and  the  Postmaster  General  of  the  United  States  of  the  other  part,  wit- 
nesseth,  that  the  said  parties  have  mutually  covenanted  as  follows,  viz.: 
The  said  contractor  covenants  with  the  Postmaster  General: 

1.  To  carry  the  mail  of  the  United  States  from  Jersey  City,  New  Jer- 
sey, across  the  Hudson  river,  and  from  the  Hudson  river  to  the  post  office 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  both  ways  daily,  and  at  such  times  as  the  Post- 
master General  shall  require,  and  within  the  shortest  time  practicable,  at 
the  rate  of,two  hundred  dollars  for  every  quarter  of  a  year,  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  this  contract;  to  be  paid  in  drafts  on  postmasters  on  the  route 
above  mentioned,  or  in  money,  at  the  option  of  the  Postmaster  General,  in 
the  months  of  May,  August,  November,  and  February, 

2.  That  the  mails  shall  be  duly  delivered  at,  and  taken  from  each  post 
office  now  established,  or  that  may  be  established  on  any  post  route  em- 
braced in  this  contract,  under  a  penalty  of  ten  dollars  for  each  offencej 
and  a  like  penalty  shall  be  incurred  for  each  ten  minutes  delay  in  the  de- 
livery of  the  mail  after  the  lime  fixed  for  its  delivery  at  any  post  office  spe- 
cified in  the  schedule  hereto  annexed;  and  it  is  also  agreed,  that  the  Post- 
master General  may  alter  the  times  of  arrival  and  departure  fixed  by  said 
schedule,  and  alter  the  route  (he  making  an  adequate  compensation  for 
any  extra  expense  which  may  be  occasioned  thereby);  and  the  Postmaster 
General  reserves  the  right  of  annulling  this  contract,  in  case  the  contractor 
does  not  promptly  adopt  the  alteration  required. 

3.  If  the  delay  of  the  arrival  of  said  mail  continue  until  the  hour  for  the 
departure  of  any  connecting  mail,  whereby  the  mails  destined  for  such  con- 
necting mails  shall  lose  a  trip,  it  shall  be  considered  as  a  whole  trip  lost, 
and  a  forfeiture  of  dollars  shall  be  incurred;  and  a  failure  to 
take  the  mail,  or  to  make  the  proper  exchange  of  mails  at  connecting  points, 
shall  be  considered  a  whole  trip  lost;  and  for  any  delay  or  failure  equal  to  a 
trip  lost,  the  Postmaster  General  shall  have  full  power  to  annul  this  contract. 

4.  That  the  said  contractor  shall  be  answerable  for  the  persons  to  whom  he 
shall  commit  the  care  and  transportation  of  the  mail,  and  accountable  for 
any  damages  which  may  be  sustained  through  their  unfaithfulness  or  want 
jof  care. 


[  86    ]  276 

5.  That  seven  minutes  after  the  delivery  of  the  mail  at  any  post  office  on 
the  aforesaid  route  not  named  in  the  annexed  schedule,  shall  be  allowed  the 
postmaster  for  opening  the  same,  and  making  up  another  mail  to  be  for- 
warded. 

6.  The  contractor  agrees  to  discharge  any  driver  or  carrier  of  said  mail, 
whenever  required  to  do  so  by  the  Postmaster  General. 

7.  That  when  the  said  mail  goes  by  stage,  such  stage  shall  be  suitable  for 
the  comfortable  accommodation  of  at  least  seven  travellers;  and  the  mail 
shall  invariably  be  carried  in  a  hecisre  dry  boot,  under  the  driver's  feet,  or 
in  the  box  which  constitutes  the  driver's  seat,  under  a  penalty  of  fifty  dol- 
lars for  each  omission;  and  when  it  is  carried  on  horseback,  or  in  a  vehicle 
other  than  a  stage,  it  shall  be  covered  securely  with  an  oilcloth,  or  bear- 
skin, against  rain  or  snow,  under  a  penalty  of  twenty  dollars  for  each  time 
the  mail  is  wet,  without  such  covering:  and  for  permitting  the  mail  to  be 
injured  a  second  time  for  carrying  it  contrary  to  the  stipulations  before  re- 
cited, ihe  Postmaster  Genei-al  shall  have  a  right  to  annul  this  contract.  The 
mail  shall  be  put  in  a  post  office,  if  there  be  one  where  the  carrier  stops  at 
night;  if  there  be  no  office,  it  shall  be  kept  in  a  secure  place,  and  there  be 
locked  up  at  the  contractor's  risk. 

8.  The  whole  forfeiture  and  penalties  to  be  incurred  in  the  course  of  any 
one  trip,  shall  not  exceed  the  sum  specified  in  the  third  article,  which  the 
contractor  hereby  binds  himself  to  pay  to  the  Postmaster  General. 

9.  The  said  Postmaster  General  covenants  with  the  said  contractor  to 
pay  as  aforesaid  for  the  carriage  of  said  mail  as  aforesaid,  at  the  rate  afore- 
mentioned, quarterly,  in  the  months  oi  May,  August,  November,  and  Fe- 
bruary. 

10.  It  is  mutually  understood  by  the  contracting  parties,  that  if  the  route, 
or  any  part  of  the  route  herein  mentioned,  shall  be  discontinued  by  act  of 
Congress,  or  in  the  opinion  of  the  Postmaster  General  becomes  useless,  or 
if  a  line  of  stages  or  steamboats  shall  be  esiablished  on  the  whole  or  any  part 
of  it,  where  the  mail  is  not  so  carried,  under  this  contract,  then  this  con- 
tract, or  such  p&rt  of  it,  shall  cease  to  be  binding  on  the  Postmaster  General, 
he  giving  notice  of  such  event,  and  making  allowance  of  one  month's 
extra  pay. 

11.  This  contract  shall  not  be  assigned  bv  the  contractor  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Postmaster  General;  and  an  assignment  of  the  pay  shall  in  no 
case  release  the  contractor  or  his  sureties  from  their  responsibilities.  Should 
the  contractor  or  his  agents  be  engaged  in  the  transmission  of  information 
by  express  on  the  routes  herein  designated  more  rapidly  than  the  mail, 
without  the  consent  of  the  department,  the  contract  shall  be  forfeited. 

Provided  always,  That  tliis  contract  shall  be  null  and  void,  in  case  the 
contractor,  or  any  person  that  may  become  interested  in  this  contract, 
directly  or  indirectly,  shall  become  a  postmaster  or  an  assistant  postmaster. 
No  member  of  Congress  shall  be  admitted  to  any  share  or  part  of  this  con- 
tract or  agreement,  or  to  any  benefit  to  arise  thereupon;  and  this  contract 
shall,  in  all  its  parts,  be  subject  to  the  terms  and  requisitions  of  an  act  of 
Congress,  passed  on  the  tvvenly-first  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight,  entitled  "An  act  concerning  public 
contracts." 

And  it  is  mutually  covenanted  and  agreed  by  the  scid  parties,  that  this 
contract  shall  commence  on  first  day  ol  January  next,  and  continue  in  force 


277  [  86   ] 

until  the  thirty-first  day  of  December,  inclusively,  which  will  be  in  the  year 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

In  witness  whereof,  they  have  hereunto  interchangeably  set  their  hands 
and  seals  the  dav  and  year  first  above  written. 

[Signed]  JOSEPH  DODD. 

Signed,  sealed,  and  delivered,  in  the  presence  of 

[Signed]        C.   Goodwin. 

Post  Office  Department,  Northern  Division. 

Office  of  Mail  Contracts,  December  17,  1834. 

I  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy   from  the  original  on  file  ia 
this  office. 

THOS.  B.   ADDISON,  Clerk. 


B. 

[Doc.  No.  99.] 

Statement  of  the  times  of  arrivals  and  departures  on  route  No.  951,  a/ 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  respectively,  at  different  periods,  since 
the  commencement  of  the  present  contract^  on  the  1st  January y  1832. 

In  the  winter  of  1832, 
The  Great  Mail  line 

Left  Philadelphia  at  1  p.  m.,  then  -  -  -  -  2  p'^  m. 

Arrived  at  New  York  by  5  a.  m.,  then  -  -  -  6  a.  m. 

Left  New  York  at  -0^^-  -  -  -  -  -  2  p.  m,  . 

Arrived  at  Philadelphia  by  -  -  -  -  -  6  a.  m. 

The  above  connected  with  a  line  that  left  Washington  at  6  a.  m.  of  the 
day  previous  to  its  arrival  in  Philadelphia. 

The  2d  or  City  line     , 

Left  Philadelphia  at  -  -  -  -  -  -     6  a.  m. 

Arrived  at  New  York  by  -  -  -  -  -     6  p.  m. 

Left  New  York  at  -  -  -  -  -  -     6  a.  m. 

Arrived  at  Philadelphia  by  -  -  -  -  -     6  p.  m. 

The  Express  line  during  the  session  of  Congress,  and  suspension  of  steam- 
boat navigation. 

Left  Philadelphia  at  9  A.  M.,  then  -  -  -  -10  a.m. 

Arrived  at  New  York  by  9  p.  m.,  then  -  .  -    10  p.  m. 

Left  New  York  at  7  a.  m.,  then  -  -  -  -8  a.m. 

Arrived  at  Philadelphia  by  7  p.  M.,nhen  -  -  -     8  p.  m. 

This  connected  with  an  express  line  from  Washington  to  Philadelphia, 

established  for  the  purpose  of  getting  Congressional  intelligence  into  New 

York   in   time  for  the  New   York  morning  papers.     It  left  W^ashington 

after  the  receipt  into  the  post  office  of  the  Washington  morning  papers,  say 

2  A.  M.  of  the  day  previous  to  its  arrival  at  Philadelphia,  and  went  by  way 

of  Lancaster. 


[  86  ]  278 

In  the  summer  of  1833,' 
The  Great  Mail  line 
Left  Philadelphia  not  later  than  -  -  -  -     6  p.  m- 

Arrived  at  New  York  by  -  -  -  -  -7a.  m. 

Left  New  York  at  -  -  -  -  -  -     4  p.  m. 

Arrived  at  Philadelphia  by  -  -  -  -  -     5  a.  m. 

This  connected  with  a  line  that  left  Washington  at  11  or  12  p.   m.  the  day 
previous  to  its  arrival  at  Philadelphia. 

The  2d  or  City  line 

Left  Philadelphia  at         -  -  -  -  -  -  6  a.  m. 

Arrived  at  New  York  by  -  -  -  -  -  6  p.  m. 

Left  New  York  at            -  -  -  -  -  -  6  a.  m. 

Arrived  at  Philadelphia  by  -  -  -  -  -  6  p.  m. 

In  the  winter  of  1S33, 

The  running  of  the  different  lines  appears  to  have  been  the  same  as  in 
the  winter  of  1S32.  Early  in  the  spring,  and  late  in  the  fall  of  the  year, 
it  would  be  the  case  that  steamboats  would  be  running  on  the  Chesapeake 
and  Delaware,  when  the  state  of  the  roads  rendered  it  necessary  to  run  this 
route  through  New  Jersey,  according  to  the  winter  arrangement  autho- 
rized by  the  department,  after  the  drawing  up  of  the  contracts,  which  allowed 
three  hours  more  than  the  summer  one.  And  at  such  times  the  arrivals  of 
the  mail,  by  boat,  at  Philadelphia  would  in  many  instances  be  very  late, 
owing  to  lale  hours  of  departure  from  Baltimore,  and  obstructions  in 
the  navigation  by  ice  and  fogs.  In  such  cases  the  arrivals  in  New  York 
would  be  delayed  to  8  and  10  a.  m.,  and  sometimes  beyond  that  hour. 

The  foregoing  facts  are  not  stated  from  my  personal  knowledge,  for  I  had 
not,  until  in  March.  1833,  any  ofiicial  charge  of  this  division  of  duty. 
They  are  derived  from  different  sources,  chiefly  from  the  officer  who  then 
superintended  the  mail  transportation. 

In  the  summer  of  1S33, 
Soon  after  the  rising  of  Congress,  in  March,  1833,  the  department  took 
measures  for  expediting  the  mail  between  Washington  and  New  York,  and 
between  that  metropolis  and  the  eastern  cities,  with  the  view  of  sending 
it  over  this  great  thoroughfare  of  travel  and  communication  with  the  ut- 
most practicable  celerity,  especially  during  the  winter  and  spring  seasons. 
There  was  the  strongest  necessity  for  doing  so.  A  private  express  had 
been  kept  up  for  a  portion  of  the  preceding  session  over  an  important  ex- 
teot  of  this  line,  to  counteract  the  mischiefs  of  which  had  obliged  the  de- 
partment to  incur  a  very  large  expense.  And  it  was  regarded  as  the  most 
imperative  duty  of  the  department  to  prevent  the  establishment  of  these 
private  expresses  in  future,  and  in  the  first  jilacc  to  make  such  arrangement 
of  the  mail  as  would  remove  all  just  ground  for  resorting  to  them.  Experi- 
enced agents  were  sent  along  the  line  to  ascertain  the  best  mode  in  which 
the  desired  expedition  could  be  effected.  It  was  found  to  be  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  run  the  mail  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York  in  twelve  hours,  in 
bad  roads  as  well  as  good,  and  it  appeared,  by  an  order  on  file,  and  an  en- 
dorsement on  the  contract,  that  the  contractor  was  at  such  times  entitled  to 
sixteen.  Unless  this  speed  was  performed,  the  connexion  could  not  be 
maintained  during  an  important  portion  of  the  year  between  the  southern 
mail  coming  into  Philadelphia,  and  the  steam  boats  leaving  New  York  for 
Albauy  and  New  Haven  at  7  a.  m.,  in  which  it  was  designed  to  send  the 


279  [  8S  ] 

great  mail.     The  contractor,  Mr.  Reeside,  unwillingly  undertook  to  give 
the  increased  speed.    The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  doing  so  had  multiplied. 
The  weight  of  the  daily  mail  on  this  line,  as  proved  by  the  certificate  of 
the  postmaster  of  New  York,  had  augmented  to    3,318  pounds.     The  road 
had  been  rendered  longer  and  more  difficult  to  travel  by  the  circumstance 
of  the   Philadelphia  and    Trenton  railway  and  the  Nev.'  York   and  New 
Brunswick    railway  being  in  process  of   construction  on  the   bed  of  the 
stage  road  at  diffijrent  points,  compelling  him  to  run   on  a   more  circuitous 
track;  and  the  shortening  of  time  had  the  effect  of  making  the  route  more 
entirely  a  night  one.     The  accomplishment  of  this  speed  was  deemed  ut- 
terly impracticable  by  the  contractor,  unless  he  was  relieved  from  stopping 
with  the  mail  at  the  numerous  intermediate  offices  on  the  route.     And  this 
being  also  the  opinion  of  the  department,  it  became  necessary   to  provide 
an  additional  line  for  conveying  the  mail  to  the  offices  between  Philadel- 
phia and  Trenton,  not  accessible  to  steamboat  supply,  and  to  the  offices  be- 
tween Jersey  City  and  New  Brunswick.     And  it  was  required  of  the  con- 
tractor, at  times  when  the  road  east  of  New  Brunswick  should  become  so 
deep  as  to  make  it  impracticable  for  a  coach  to  be  drawn  with  the  requisite 
speed,  to  have  provided  a  sufficient  number  of  horses  and  riders  to  convey 
on  horseback;  the  mails  to  be  on  such  occasions  put  in  long   bags  for  that 
purpose.     The  contractor  asked  for  this  and  two  other  items  of  necessary 
service,  contracted  for  at  the  same  time,  S9, 123;  but  eventually  accepted 
the  price  estimated  by  the  department  for  the  whole,  to  wit:  S5,125.     From 
which  deduct  the  expense  (S3, 150)  of  the  express  mail  line,  dispensed  with 
by  this  arrangement,  and  the  cost  of  the  improvement,  and  the  other  service 
referred  to,  stands  at  iSl,975.     By  this,  and  one  or  two  other  changes  on 
this  line,  the  department  effected  a  gain  of  fifteen  hours  between  Washing- 
ton and  New  York  in  the  despatch  of  the  mail,   on  the  winter  arrangement, 
and  gave  to  Boston  and  Albany,  and  the  depending  points,  their  Washing- 
ton and  southern  mail  one  day  quicker  than  before. 

After  this  arrangement  went  into  efl'ect,  on  the  1st  of  May,  1833,  and 
until  the  middle  of  February,  1834,  the  running  has  been,  in  winter  as  well 
as  summer,  as  follows: 

The  Great  Mail  line 

Left  Philadelphia  after  arrival  of  southern  mail  usually  at  -     6  p.  m. 

Arrived  at  New  York  at  from       -             -             -             -  4  to  6  a.  m. 

Left  New  York  usually  at             -             -             -             -  -     4  p.  m. 

Arrived  at  Philadelphia  from  3  to             -             -             -  -     5  a.m. 

This  connected  with  a  line  that  left  Washington  at  from  10  to  12  o'clock 
of  the  night  previous  to  its  arrival  at  Philadelphia,  in  ivi /iter  as  well  as  sum- 
mer. In  the  winter  there  were  instances  of  arrivals  at  Philadelphia  from 
the  south  so  late  as  to  delay  the  arrivals  at  New  York  on  951,  though  run- 
ning in  12  hours,  till  after  the  departure  of  the  New  Haven  boats.  In  such 
cases  the  mail  was  immediately  despatched  by  the  contractor,  by  land,  to  New 
Haven,  and  the  connexions  with  the  mail  for  Boston  generally  preserved. 

The  2d  or  City  line  run  as  before. 

The  Way  flails  for  Pennsylvania  and  Jersey  towns 

Left  Philadelphia  at          -             -             -  -  -  -     6  a.  m- 

Arrived  at  New  York  next  day  by  10  or  -  -  -  11  a.  m. 

Left  New  York  at             -            -             -  -  -  -2  p.m. 

Arrived  at  Philadelphia  next  day  by        -  -  -  -     6  p.  m. 


[  86  3  280 

About  the  miJdIc  of  February,  1S34,  the  contractor  engaged  the  Amboy 
and  Camden  RaUroad  Conripany  to  convey  for  him  the  mails  of  the  great 
]tne,  and  also  of  the  second  or  city  line,  running  his  stages  from  Jersey 
City,  opposite  New  York,  to  Amboy,  the  termination  of  the  railroad. 
Not  long  afterwards,  the  experiment  of  running  a  steamboat  from  New  York 
to  Amboy  in  the  night  succeeding,  the  mails  were  conveyed  by  steamboat 
and  railroad  through  from  city  to  city  with  still  greater  speed. 

This  arrangement  was  a  desideratum  with  the  department,  and  could  only 
be  eflfected  through  Mr.  Reeside,  as  he  held  the  contract  for  the  entire 
service  until  the  31st  December,  1835. 

The  Great  Mail  line 

At  present  leaves  Philadelphia  after  arrival  of  southern  mail  in  the  afternoon- 
Arrives  at  New  York  from  -  -  -  -  3  to  6  a.'  m. 

Leaves  New  York  at        -  -  -  -  -  -     4  p.  m. 

Arrives  at  Philadelphia  from        -  -  -  -  3  to  5  a.  m. 

The  2d,  or  City  line 

Leaves  Philadelphia  at     -  -             -  -  -  -     6  a.  m. 

Arrives  at  New  York  by  -             -  -  -  -     2  p.  m. 

Leaves  New  York  at        -  -  -  -  -6  a.m. 

Arrives  at  Philadelphia  by  -             -  -  -  -     2  p.  m. 

The  3d,  or  Slow  line,  for  bulky  matter, 

Leaves  Philadelphia  at     -             -  -  -  -  -  10  a.  m 

Arrives  at  New  York  next  day  by  -  -  -  -  10  a.  m. 

Leaves  New  York  at        -            -  -  -  -  -  10  a.  m. 

Arrives  at  Philadelpliia  next  day  by  -  -  -  -  10  a.  m. 

The  4th,  or  Way  line,  for  the  Pennsylvania  and  Jersey  towns, 

Leaves  Philadelphia  at     -             -  -             -  -  -     6  a.  m. 

Arrives  at  New  York  next  day  by  -            -  -  -     5  a.m. 

Leaves  New  York  at         -             -  -             -  -  -     3  p.  m. 

Arrives  at  Philadelphia  next  day  by  -            -  ►  10  or  11  a.  m. 

S.  R.  HOBBIE, 


30M  September,  1834. 


Assistant  Postmaster  General. 


[Doc.  No.  100.] 

New  York,  November  7,  1834. 


Joseph  Benedict,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 

respective  interrogatories: 

Question  1.  How  long  have  you  been  a  clerk  in  the  post  office  of  this  city.^ 

Answer  I.   Seven  years,  and  have  charge  of  the  distributing  department. 

f^ Question  2.  During  the  year  1832  and  in  1833  what  mails  were  received 

from  Philadelphia  at  this  office,  and  at  what  hours  did  they  arrive? 

Answer  2.  At  some  seasons  of  the  year  there  are  more  than  one.  Our 
regular  large  southern  mail  arrives  daily  at  6  in  the  morning,  and  closes  at 
the  office  at  2  P.  M.  The  mail  we  receive  by  the  steamboat  from  Phila- 
delphia arrives  usually  before  4  o'clock;  now  it  comes  about  2  o'clock.     1 


581  [  86  ] 

usually  goes  off  at  6  in  the  morning;  we  close  it  at  5.  What  we  send  by 
this  mail  is  for  Philadelphia  alone,  although  we  often  receive  other  mails 
by  the  steamboat  than  that  from  Philadelphia.  I  think  this  mail  depends 
for  departure  and  arrival  on  the  steamboats  entirely.  This  has  been  the 
regular  arrangement  for  these  two  m.ails  for  some  years  past.  There  was  a 
mail  in  the  winters  of  1S32  and  1S33  received  some  time  in  the  night.  1 
think  it  continued  during  the  sessions  of  Congress,  but  I  am  not  sure.  It 
was  received  every  night,  and  was  called  an  extra  or  express  mail.  I  am 
not  able  to  recollect  whether  we  made  up  and  sent  a  mail  to  the  south  by 
this  conveyance;  nor  do  I  recollect  whether  there  was  a  fixed  hour  for  it 
to  arrive.  I  think  it  did  not  run  at  any  other  time  than  when  Congress 
was  in  session.     1  am  sure  it  did  not  run  regularly  throughout  the  year. 

We  receive  two  regular' mails  every  day  besides  the  express  mail  spoken 
of.  There  is  mail  matter,  papers,  pamphlets,  &c.,  which  has  heretofore 
been  received  in  the  early  part  of  the  day  by  the  boat,  between  10  and  12 
o'clock. 

Question  3.  With  the  exception  of  the  express  mail  before  mentioned, 
have  you  any  regular  mail  from  Philadelphia  besides  the  great  southern 
mail  which  arrives  about  6  in  the  morning,  and  the  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia mail,  which  arrives  about  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon? 

Answer  3.  Not  unless  that  is  considered  a  regular  mail  which  arrives 
from  10  o'clock  A.  M.  to  12  in  a  boat. 

QueslioR  4.  Are  not  the  great  southern  mail,  and  the  New  York  and 
Philadelphia  mail,  brought  by  the  steamboat  ami  railroad  line  of  convey- 
ance? 

Answer  4.   I  do  not  know  in  what  manner  Mr.  Reeside  gets  them  here. 

Question  5.  When  the  steamboats  are  not  running,  do  these  two  mails 
continue? 

Answer  5.  The  New  York  and  Philadelphia  morning  mail  is  not  sent 
when  the  steamboats  do  not  run. 

Question  6.  Has  there  been  any  alteration  to  your  knowledge  within  the 
last  two  years,  in  the  time  of  arrival  and  departure  of  these  two  mails? 

Answer  6.  At  2  o'clock  we  have  closed  the  southern  mail  constantly. 
The  New  York  and  Philadelphia  morning  mail  formerly  closed  at  S  in  the 
evening,  and  for  about  two  years  it  has  closed  at  5  o'clock  in  the  morning. 
Sundays,  the  great  sriSSSIiern  mail  closes  at  half  past  one. 

The  express  mail  spoken  of  was  the  mail  which  came  in  portmanteaus, 
and  witness  understood  on  horseback.  They  sometimes  would  weigh  forty 
pounds.  There  were  two  of  ihem  came  daily:  probably  35  to  40  pounds 
would  be  an  average  weight  of  each. 

Question  7.  Has  there  been  any  incrensod  expedition  in  the  conveyance 
of  the  mails  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  for  the  last  two  years, 
except  the  express  horse  maii? 

Answer  7.  We  have  received  the  mails,  I  think,  at  the  same  time  through- 
out the  two  years.  The  express  horse  mail  was  usually  received  about  II 
o'clock  at  night;  sometimes  it  did   not  come  till  4  o'clock  in  the  inorning. 

Question  8.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  a  distinct  separate  mail  from  (lie 
city  of  New  York  to  New  Brunswick,  in  Jersey? 

Answers.  There  is  a  mail  wiiich  is  made  up  four  times  a  week;  twice  by 
way  of  Trenton,  and  twice  a  week  by  Brunswick,  including  the  counties  of 
Monmouth,  Hunterdon,  and  part  of  Middlesex.     T.he  mails  for  Trenton  and 
36 


[86] 


2Sa 


Brunswick  arc  not  sent  in  this  route.  I  do  not  know  whether  this  mail  ii 
carried  by  a  separate  conveyance  or  not.  I  do  not  know  who  is  the  con- 
tractor. It  closes  at  the  same  hour  with  the  great  southern  mail,  and  is 
sent  out  of  the  letter  office  at  the  same  time  with  the  other,  and  is  called 
in  our  office  the  Millstone  mail.  There  is  another  mail  which  closes  at  the 
same  hour,  and  is  called  the  southern  way  mail,  and  includes  the  ollices  be- 
tween this  and  Philadelphia,  upon  the  main  coach  route  through  Newark, 
New  Brunswick,  Trenton,  and  Bristol.  How  it  is  carried  I  do  not  know. 
There  is  nothing  in  it  for  Philadelphia,  or  beyond  Philadelphia. 

Question  9.  Where  are  these  several  mails  delivered  to  the  contractors 
who  carry  them? 

Answer  9.  If  Col.  Joseph  Dod  is  the  contractor  for  carrying;  the  great 
southern  mail  and  the  way  mails  from  the  office,  as  I  think  he  is,  they  are 
delivered  to  him  at  the  office,  and  he  conveys  them,  as  I  suppose,  to  the 
boats  and  to  Jersey  City. 

JOSEPH  BENEDICT. 


[Doc.  No.  101.] 

Copy   of  interrogatories  addressed  by  the  Committee  to  the  Postmasters 

at  Holmesburg,  &c.,  15th  December,  1834; 

Interrogatory  1.  How  have  the  mails  between  Philadelphia  and  New 
Yorlc  been  brought  to  and  carried  away  from  your  office  since  1st  January, 
1832?  State  in  what  mode  of  conveyance;  in  four  horse  post  coaches,  two 
horse  coaches,  or  in  what  manner?  How  are  they  now  carried?  What 
changes  have  been  made  from  that  time  to  the  present?  At  what  times  were 
those  changes  made,  and  for  what  length  of  time  did  each  change  continue? 

Interrogatory  2.  At  what  hours  have  they  arrived,  at  different  periods, 
from  each  direction? 

Interrogatory  3.  Have  there  been  any  deficiencies  or  failures  in  the  run- 
ning or  delivery  of  those  mails?     If  so,  state  what  they  were. 

Interrogatory  4.  By  whom  have  the  mails  been  carried  and  delivered  at 
your  office? 

Interrogatory  5.  Do  you  know  any  thing  respecting  the  contracts  for 
carrying  those  mails?     If  so,  state  what  they  were,  and  what  they  are  now. 

Interrogatory  6.  At  what  limes  have  these  mails,  or  any  part  of  them, 
been  carried  by  or  through  your  office? 

State  of  New  Jeksey,  county  of  Essex,  ss. 

Be  it  remembered,  that  on  this  nineteenth  day  of  December,  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-four,  personally  appeared  before 
me,  Daniel  S.  Moore,  one  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  in  and  for  said  county 
of  Essex,  Prudden  Ailing,  esq.  postmaster  at  Newark,  New  Jersey,  who,  hav- 
ing produced  before  me  six  several  interrogatories,  directed  to  him  by  Mat- 
thew St.  Clair  Clarke,  secretary,  &e.,  dated  "15th  December,  1S34,  Wash- 
ington^" and  being  by  me  first  duly  sworn,  according  to  law,  to  the  first  of 
said  interrogatories  answereth  and  saith: 

That  he  came  into  the  post  office  at  Nev/ark,  New  Jersey,  on  the  first  day 
of  April,  1833;  that  then,  and  for  some  time  afterwards,  the  mails  between 
Philadelphia  and  New  York  were   brought   to  and  carried  away  from  his 


283  [  86  J 

office  in  post  coaches  with  four  horses;  that  afterwards  ne  way  mail  to  and 
from  Philadelphia  was  carried  in  a  wagon  with  one  horse;  then  afterwards, 
and  now,  in  a  carriage  with  two  horses;  that  said  mail  was  carried  to  and 
from  New  York  in  a  coach,  with  four  horses,  and  lately  by  the  New  Jersey 
Railroad  and  Transportation  company;  that  he  cannot  tell  at  what  time  or 
times  those  changes  were  made,  as  this  deponent  is  not  required  nor  does  he 
keep  any  record  thereof 

To  the  second  of  said  interrogatories  he  answereth  and  saith: 

That  at  the  said  time  he  came  into  office  the  mail  from  the  south  arrived 
at  his  office  at  about  four  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  from  New  York  at 
about  five  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  until  the  said  change  first  above  named; 
since  then  and  now  the  way  mail  is  received  from  the  south  at  about  four 
and  a  half  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  and  from  New  York  at  about  five  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon. 

To  the  third  interrogatory  he  answereth  and  saith: 

That  there  were  formerly  some  unimportant  delays,  but  none  lately. 

To  the  fourth  interrogatory  he  ansvvereth  and  saith: 

That  he  was  informed  and  believes  that  Mr.  Reeside  carried  and  delivered 
said  mails  at  his  office,  when  they  were  carried,  in  post  coaches  with  four 
horses,  as  aforesaid;  that  afterwards  the  way  mail  was  carried  to  and  from 
the  south  to  his  office  by  Mr.  Coddington;  that  the  said  mail  to  and  from 
New  York  was  carried  by  Mr.  Vreeland,  to  meet  Mr.  Coddington's  con- 
tract; and  that  now  it  is  carried  to  and  from  New  York,  to  meet  said  con- 
tract, by  the  New  Jersey  Railroad  and  Transportation  company. 

To  the  fifth  interrogatory  he  answereth  and  saith:     No. 

To  the  sixth  interrogatory  he  answereth  and  saith: 

That  once  the  Railroad  car  left  the  mail  from  New  York  at  Jersey  City, 
on  the  same  evening  it  was  delivered  at  his  office  by  the  Orange  mail  stage, 
in  about  one  hour  after  its  usual  time;  that  he  had  the  same  immediately 
forwarded  to  New  Brunswick. 

And  further  this  deponent  saith  not. 

P.  ALLING. 

Taken,  sworn,  and  subscribed  before  me,  the  day  and  year  aforesaid. 

DANIEL  S.  MOORE, 
Justice  of  the  Peace. 


Princeton,  December  23,  1834. 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  certain  interrogatories  propounded  by  M.  St. 
Clair  Clarke,  Secretary  of  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
investigating  the  concerns  of  the  General  Post  Office,  John  A.  Ferrine,  post 
master  at  Princeton,  N.  J.,  would  say: 

Answer  1.  In  answer  to  the  first  interrogatory  the  postmaster  saith,  that 
he  has  only  been  in  office  since  the  1st  day  of  October  last  past,  and  can  con- 
sequently say  nothing  of  his  own  knowledge  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
mails  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York  were  conveyed  prior  to  that 
time.  They  are  now  and  have  been  since  the  first  of  October  conveyed 
from  Trenton  to  New  Brunswick  in  two  horse  coaches,  and  no  changes 
have  been  made  from  that  time  to  the  present;  how  they  were  carried  from 
Philadelphia  to  Trenton,  and  from  Now  Brunswick  to  New  York  he  is  un- 
able to  say. 


[  86  ]  284 

Answer  2.  The  mails  arrive  from  New  York  generally  between  the 
hours  of  eight  and  nine,  and  from  Philadelphia  between  the  hours  of  nine 
and  ten  o'clock  A.  M. 

Answer  3.  There  have  been  no  deficiencies  or  failures  in  the  running  or 
delivery  of  the  mails. 

Answer  4.  The  mails  have  been  carried  and  delivered  at  this  office  by 
the  coaches  and  drivers  of  Phineas  Wiihington,  and  since  his  decease  by 
the  coaches  and  drivers  belonging  to  his  estate. 

Answer  5.  He  knows  nothing  respecting  the  contracts  for  carrying  the 
mails,  either  as  to  what  they  were  or  what  they  are  now. 

Answer  6.  The  postmaster  is  doubtful  whether  he  understands  the 
question  as  to  whjft  time  these  mails  or  any  part  of  them  pass  by  or  through 
his  office:  as  he  apprehends  it,  he  would  reply,  that  the  mails  pass  through 
his  office  each  day,  from  both  directions,  (except  on  Sundays). 

JOHN  A.  PERRINE. 

December  24,  1834. 

Before  me,  Charles  M.  Campbell,  justice  of  the  peace  for  Middlesex 
county,  personally  appeared  on  this  twenty-fourth  day  of  December,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-four,  John  A.  Perrine,  postmaster  of 
Princeton,  N.  J.,  who,  being  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  saith  that  the 
answers  above  stated,  and  to  which  he  has  subscribed  his  name,  are  true  in 
substance  and  in  fact,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief. 

JOHN  A.  PERRINE. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me  this  24th  dav  of  December,  1834. 

C.  M.  CAMPBELL,  J.  P. 


HoLMESBURG,  Pa.  , 

December  19,  1534. 
Sih:  I  received  last  evening  «  letter  from    Mw.  St.  Clair  Clarke,  esq.,  re- 
questing from  me  answers  to  six  intenoi;atories.      "First.     How  have  the 
mails  between  Philadelphia  and  your  office  been  delivered  since  Januarv, 
1832?'' 

The  mails  are  now  delivered  to  this  office  and  taken  from  it  in  the  same 
way  that  they  have  been  for  the  last  six  or  seven  years,  in  four  horse  coach- 
es. Leave  this  office  from  S  to  half  past  S  A.  M. ;  returning,  leave  Philadel- 
phia at  4  P.  M.  al)out  six  m.cnths  in  the  year,  and  arrive  here  about  G  P.  M. 
The  remainder  of  the  year,  leave  here  from  8  to  half  past  S;  returning,  leave 
Philadelphia  at  half  pisst  3  P.  M.  ;  arrive  here  about  h:)lf  past  5  P.  M.  No 
changes  have  been  made  durin^i;  the  above  period,  with  the  only  exception 
of  this  year,  wiien  the  mails  from  Philadcl])hia  were  delivered  from  the  be- 
ginning of  May  to  the  last  of  Septsmber  twict;  a  day:  in  the  morning  deli- 
vered at  10  A.  M  ,  and  closed  here  at  half  past  3  P.  M.,  for  which  the  con- 
tractor has  informed  me  he  never  received  anj-  additional  compensation. 
The  second  interrogatory  is  very  much  embraced  in  the  above. 

To  the  third  interrogatory:  Very  little  variation  as  to  the  arrival  and  de- 
parture of  the  maiis  from  this  office. 

The  fourth  interrogatory:  "  Bj'  vi'hom  have  the  mails  been  carric<l?"  Da- 
vid Z.  Davis  is  now  and  has  been  the  cojitractor  for  a  period  of  six  or  seven 
years,  and  by  him  the  mails  have  been  delivered  to  this  office. 


285  [  86 

To  the  fifth  interrogatory  :  I  understood  at  the  time  Mr.  Davis  obtained 
the  contract  for  carrying  the  mails,  that  an  office  was  applied  for  at  Ken- 
sington, and  granted.  It  was  at  tliat  time  IMr.  Davis  applied,  and  proposed 
to  carry  the  mails  for  Kensington,  Frankford,  Holmesburg,  and  Bustleton. 
The  last  named  ofiBce  is  about  three  miles  in  a  northwestern  direction  from 
here,  and  not  on  the  main  New  York  road. 

I  inquired  of  Mr.  Davis  this  morning  what  was  the  amount  he  received 
for  carrying  those  mails,  and  he  informed  me  two  dollars  per  week,  making 
one  hundred  and  four  dollars  per  year.  The  mail  from  this  to  Bustleton  he 
most  generally  conveys  in  a  one  horse  dearborn  wagon. 

The  sixth  interrogatory  is  very  much  embraced  in  the  above  interrogato- 
ries: all  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted  to  your  honorable  committee. 

I  am,  verv  truly,  yours, 

JACOB  WATERMAN. 
To  Hon.  Felix  Grundy. 

Philadelphia  County,  ssr 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  the  subscriber,  one  of  the  justices  of  the 
peace  in  and  for  said  county,  the  above  named  Jacob  Waterman,  and  was 
duly  qualified  according  to  law,  that  the  answers  to  t!ie  foregoing  questions 
are  true,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge. 

Witness  my  hand  and  seal  this  22d  day  of  December,  A.  D.  1834. 

Justice's  costs  25  cents:  paid.  B.  CORSPIN.   [l.  s.] 


Frankford,  December  22,  1834. 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Senate,  investigating  the  concerns  of  the  General  Post  Office,  I  send  the 
following  answers  to  the  interrogatories,  prefacing  said  answers  by  saying 
that  I  have  only  had  charge  of  the  post  office  at  Frankford  since  the  11th  of 
November  last. 

Answer  1st.  The  mails  are  brought  to  and  carried  from  this  office  in  four 
horse  post  coaches,  and  no  change  has  been  made  since  I  have  had  charge  of 
the  office. 

Answer  2d.  Going  to  Philadelphia  about  9  o'clock  A.  M.;  returning 
from  Philadelphia  4^  o'clock  P.  M. 

Answer  3d.   No  deficiency  or  failure. 

Answer  4th.  David  Z.  Davis. 

Answer  5th.  I  know  nothing  respecting  the  contracts  for  carrying  the 
mails. 

Answer  6th.  The  mails  have  not  at  any  time  since  I  have  had  charge  of 
the  oflSce  been  carried  by  or  through  my  agency. 

JOHN  DEAL,  P.  M. 
Hon.  Felix  Grundy. 

December  22f  1834. 
Philadelphia  county,  Oxford  township. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me,  the  subscriber,  a  justice  of  the  peace  in 
iind  for  the  county  of  Philadelphia,  the  day  and  year  aforesaid. 

GEO.  K.  BUDD. 


[  86  ]  286 

'  V  [Doc.  No.  103.  ] 

Philadelphia^  13lh  ,  1834. 

Jahies  Page,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective 
interrogatories: 

Question  1.   What  number   of  mails  are  carried  between  this  c:ty  and 
New  York,  and  what  are  the  respective  hours  of  their  arrival.and  departure? 
Answer  1.   There  are  what  are  called  four  mails  between  this  and  New 
York. 

First,  which  leaves  at  G  o'clock  in  the  morning,  is  termed ''  The  New  York 

city  mail,"  which  carries  the  letters  from  this  city  for  New  York  city  alone. 

Second  is  "TheV'ay  mail"  between  thisand  the  city  of  New  York.  Leaves 

at  the  same  hour,  and  carries  all  the  letters  intended  for  the  several  offices 

upon  the  route 

Third  is  called  "The  10  o'clock  mail,  or  Slow  line."  This  takes  all  the 
newspapers  and  periodicals  which  are  not  sent  by  the  fast  mail. 

Fouth  is  "  The  threat  Southern  Mail,"  which;  closes  at  three,  and  leaves  at 
from  half  past  three  to  five  or  six  P.  M.,  depending  on  the  arrival  of  the 
steamboat  from  Baltimore. 

The  first  is  carried  in  winter  by  stages,  in  summer  by  steamboats  and 
stages,  and  depends  for  its  departure  on  the  time  the  steamboats  start  with 
passengers.  The  10  o'clock  mail  also  goes  by  steamboats,  and  starts  in  the 
same  way.  The  steamboats  carrying  the  mail  generally  are  punctual  in 
starting  at  the  hour  fixed.  I  cannot  answer  particularly  as  to  how  the  10 
o'clock  mail  is  carried  when  the  steamboats  do  not  run. 

Question  2.  Is  it  required  that  the  heavy  matter  which  is  carried  in  the 
10  o'clock  mail  should  be  carried  separately,  or  is  it  permitted  for  the  benefit 
of  the  contractor? 

Answer  2.  I  should  say  it  is  required  to  be  carried  so. 
Question  3.   Does  this  matter  come  in  the  great  southern  mail  in  whole  or 
in  part,  or  does  it  come  separately  from  Baltimore? 

Answer  3.  It  comes  separate  from  the  letter  mail,  in  large  bags,  from 
the  west  and  south.  A  portion  of  it  may  come  at  the  same  time  with  the 
letter  mail,  and  some  of  it  comes  round  by  the  way  of  York  from  Baltimore. 
AVhen  the  steamboats  run  it  comes  with  the  letter  mails;  in  winter,  when 
stages  carry  the  mail,  it  comes  as  before  described.  This  matter  could  be 
forwarded  by  the  rapid  line  when  the  steamboats  run  and  the  rail  road  is  in 
operation.     It  is  impracticable  when  steamboats  do  not  run. 

Question  4.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  any  express  mails  having  run  on 
this  route? 

Answer  4.  1  do  not. 

Question  5.  What  are  the  hours  of  arrival  of  the  several  New  York  mails? 
Answer  5.  I  should  say  that  the  six  o'clock  city  line  and  way  line  ar- 
rive together  from  three  to  five  o'clock  P.  M.  The  10  o'clock  slow  line 
at  about  ten  next  day;  and  the  fast  line  from  half  past  three  to  five  on  the 
morning  of  the  next  day.  That  is,  as  near  as  may  be,  the  time  of  the  arri- 
vals of  those  mails. 

Question  6.  What  are  the  mails  which  are  carried  between  this  and  Balti- 
more, and  the  hours  of  their  arrival  and  departure? 

Answer  6.  In  the  summer  time,  now,  there  is  but  one.  It  departs  at  six 
A.  M.,  and  it  reaches  here  at  from  half  past  two  to  five  P.  M.,  depending 
upon  the  steamboats. 


287  C  86  ] 

There  were  two  mails  between  this  and  Baltimore.  The  additional  one 
was  called  "  The  City  Mail  from  Philadelphia  to  Baltimore,"  and  ran,  I  think, 
from  here  at  three  P.  M,  The  first  took  the  letters  which  had  come  in 
over  night  and  the  day  preceding;  the  second  took  those  which  came  in  af- 
ter the  closing  of  the  first  up  to  the  hour  of  its  departure. 

Question  7.  Did  not  this  second  mail  depend  on  the  steamboats,  and  did 
it  not  cease  to  run'when  the  steamboat  line  of  that  hour  was  given  up? 

Answer  7.  Yes;  it  only  existed  when  the  boats  ran.  More  particular  in- 
formation in  relation  to  the  arrival  and  departure  of  all  the  mails  can  be  given 
you  by  George  Tabor,  a  clerk  in  my  office;  and  Mr.  lieekman  Potter  can 
state  particularly  the  arrival  and  departure  of  the  mails  prior  to  my  being  in 
office. 

JAMES  PAGE. 


[Doc.  No.  103.] 

Philadelphia,  November  13,  1834. 

Beekman  Potter,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  re- 
spective interrogatories,  viz. : 

Question  1.   How  long  have  you  been  in  the  post  office  of  this  city? 
Answer  1.    Eight  years;  and  am  an  assistant  clerk,  performing  various 
duties. 

Question  2.  When  you  first  came  into  the  office  how  many  mails  were 
carried  between  this  city  and  New  York,  in  summer? 

Answer  2.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  there  were  two.  The  regular 
line  mail  left  at  two  P.  M. ;  the  other  left  with  the  steamboat  in  the  morn- 
ing, and  carried  only  the  "New  York  city  mail."  The  way  mail  went 
out  in  the  regular  line,  and  was  caried  in  the  same  coaches.  I  think  it  con- 
tinued the  same  until  about  the  time  Col.  Page  came  into  office. 

Question  3.  Do  you  know  of  any  express  mail  from  this  to  New  York 
since  1st  January,  1832? 

Answer  3.  About  two  winters  ago  Col.  Reeside  ran  one.  It  started 
after  the  arrival  of  the  southern  mail,  as  soon  as  we  had  time  to  select 
the  packages  and  newspapers  destined  for  New  York  city.  It  was  car- 
ried on  two  horses;  the  departure  was  from  two  to  six  P.  M. ,  and  we 
received  by  the  return  express  the  New  York  city  papers  and  letters:  it 
generally  arrived  in  the  evening  about  six  o'clock.  It  ran,  I  think,  about 
a  month.  Some  of  the  newspaper  editors  of  New  York  had  at  the  time  a 
private  express:  sometimes  one  beat  and  sometimes  the  other.  I  know  of 
no  other  Government  express  or  express  mail  except  the  above. 

Question  4,  What  mails  have  been  carried  between  this  and  Pittsburgh 
since  1st  January,  1832? 

Answer  4.  <<  The  Great  Western  Mail"  and  what  is  called  the  "  Harris- 
burg  Mail,  via  Reading."  The  former  went  out  at  seven  A.  M.,  and  arrived 
from  two  to  five  P.  M. 

Question  5.  Was  there  any  other  mail  sent  on  the  great  western  mail 
route,  which  closed  and  departed  at  a  different  hour? 

Answer  5.    No. 

Question  6.  Do  you  know  of  any  express  mail  running  from  this  to  Pitts- 
burgh at  any  time  since  1st  January,  1832? 

Answer  6.  There  was  none  to  my  knowledge. 


[  86  ]  .  288 

Question  7.  Do  you  know  of  any  express  mail  running  between  this  and 
BaUimore  at  any  time  since  1st  January,  IS'^2} 

Answer  7.  I  do  not. 

Question  8.  How  many  regular  mails  on  eacii  day  have  been  transported 
to  New  York  from  this  place  since  1832?  What  mail  matter  was  respectively 
conveyed  by  them,  and  what  changes,  from  time  to  time,  have  been  made 
therein? 

Answer  8.  The  first  mail  is  the  steamboat  mail,  which  leaves  the  office 
at  six  A.  M.,  and  carries  the  ''New  York  city  mail."  The  second  is  the 
great  northern  mail,  which  closes  at  two  P.  W.,  carrying  all  letters,  &c. 
for  the  east;  and  with  it  went,  for  some  time,  the  way  mail  between  this 
and  New  York,  and  went  over  land.     This  was  in  1832. 

In  the  summer  of  1S33  the  railroad  came  into  use.  The  heavy  matter  was 
then  divided,  and  all  papers,  &c.;  but  no  letters  were  sent  by  it  at  ten  o'clock. 
Tlie  way  mail  was  separated  from  the  great  northern  mail,  and  was  sent  partly 
by  water  and  partly  by  land. 

In  the  winter  of  1833,  '34,  there  was  a  regular  line  starting  at  seven, 
A.  M.;  it  went  by  land  through  Trenton,  Princeton,  &c.,  and  carried  no- 
thing but  the  New  York  city  mail. 

The  next  one  was  the  transportation  line,  which  carried  papers,  docu- 
ments, &c. ;  was  irregular  in  its  time  of  applying  at  the  office  for  the  mail — 
coming  for  it  at  all  hours.  This  transportation  line  carried  merchandise, 
and  took  two  days  to  two  and  a  half  to  get  through.  When  the  boats  did 
not  run  this  mail  matter  was  carried  in  wagons. 

The  next  was  the  great  eastern  mail,  which  departed  at  three  P.  M.  j  and 
with  this  was  sent  the  way  mail  between  this  and  New  York. 

B.  POTTER. 

Saturday,  January  24,  IS 35. 

Beckman  Potter,  being  first  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  testimony: 

I  am  a  clerk  in  the  post  office  at  Philadelphia,  and  have  been  since  the 
year  1827. 

During  the  years  1829,  1830,  and  1831,  the  average  time  of  the  arrival 
of  the  mail  at  Philadelphia  from  New  York  was  from  four  to  six  o'clock, 
A.  M. ;  and  the  average  time  of  departure  of  the  mail  from  Philadelphia  to 
New  York,  during  the  same  years,  was  from  two  to  three  o'clock,  P.  M» 
During  the  year  1831  I  believe  the  average  time  of  arrival  and  departure 
of  the  Philadelphia  mail  at  and  from  New  York  was  the  same  as  the  time  of 
arrival  and  departure  at  and  from  Philadelphia,  above  stated. 

B.  POTTER. 


[Doc.  No.  104.] 

Washington  City,  December  2S,  1831. 
Sir:  For  the  four  years  which  I  have  been  your  contractor  for  transporting 
the  great  eastern  mail  from  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  it  has  happened  al- 
most every  week,  and  several  times  in  a  week,  that  arrivals  from  foreigrt 
countries  have  brought  thousands  of  ship  letters  to  the  office  of  New 
York  just  before  my  time  for  departure,  and  the  importance  of  their  be- 
ing forwarded  without  delay  to  the  southern  cities  has  required  my  deten- 
tion from  one  to  two  hours  beyond  the  ordinary  time  for  me  to  leave  New 


♦  289  [  S6  3 

York:  this  detention  I  have  been  required  to  gain  in  speed,  and  that  in- 
creased speed  has  required  me  always  to  keep  on  that  route  two  extra  teams 
of  horses,  at  an  extra  expense  of  not  less  than  one  thousand  dollars  per 
year  for  each  team.  During  the  first  year  your  predecessor  made  me  an  ex- 
tra allowance  for  this  expense,  but  during  the  last  three  years  I  have  received 
nothing  for  it.  I  now  submit  the  subject  to  you  in  the  expectation  that 
you  will  allow  the  claim;  it  is  certainly  but  just  that  I  should  be  relieved, 
at  least  in  part,  of  this  burden:  for  the  last  three  years  it  has  subjected  me 
to  an  expense  of  not  less  than  six  thousand  dollars,  which  I  hope  you  will 
direct  to  be  paid  to  me,  at  least  in  part,  if  you  do  not  think  me  entitled  to 
the  whole.  I  have  also  within  the  same  time  transported  to  New  York 
all  the  large  mail  bags  which  are  made  in  Philadelphia,  and  sent  to  New 
York  not  with  mails  but  to  be  used  in  New  York,  and  to  be  sent  from 
New  York  to  other  places;  these  within  three  years  will  amount  to  about  500 
pounds  a  week,  as  will  appear  from  the  accounts  of  the  manufacturers  in 
your  office.  Wherever  I  could  procure  transportation  for  those  bags 
in  wagons  1  have  uniformly  paid  $2,50  per  hundred  pounds  for  carrying 
them,  rather  than  overload  my  coaches  in  which  we  carry  the  great  mail. 
For  this  service,  1  hope  you  will  not  consider  my  claim  unreasonable,  if  I 
charge  ten  dollars  per  week  for  three  years:  all  of  which  is  submitted  to 
your  sense  of  justice  for  decision. 

Very  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  REESIDE. 
Hon.  William  T.  Barry. 

Endorsement — Allowed.     Allow  S4,500.     The  residue  of  the  claim  is 
reserved  for  future  consideration.     Allow  the  remaining  iS  1,500. 


Philadelphia,  J«?i 2/ ary  5,  1832.^  ' 
I  certify  that  Col.  Jas.  Reeside  has  been  under  the  necessity  of  keeping 
two  additional  teams  of  horses  on  the  line  of  mail  coaches  between  New 
York  and  Philadelphia,  for  the  last  three  years,  on  account  of  his  frequent 
detention  at  New  York  for  ship  letters;  and  that  the  expense  of  each  team 
is  not  less  than  one  thousand  dollars  a  year. 

GEORGE  CARTER, 
^ gent  for  the  U.  S.  Mail  Line  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia. 


Post  Office,  New  York,  Dec.  31,  1832. 

I  certify  that  for  the  last  three  years  Mr.  Reeside,  the  contractor  between 

this  city  and  Philadelphia,  has  been  in  the  habit  of  delaying  his  departure 

from  this  place,  from  one  to  three  hours  later  than  the  time  specified  for  his 

departure,   on  account  of  the  number  of  ship   letters  which  were  oftea 

37 


[  86  ]  290 

received  at  a  late  hour,  requiring  to  be  forwarded  without  delay.  And  that 
such  detentions  have  been  very  frequent,  requiring  him  to  give  great  in- 
creased speed  to  his  route  to  Philadelphia.  I  make  this  statement  with 
pleasure,  because,  having  ever  entertained  a  desire  to  transmit  foreign  letters 
south  without  delay,  I  have  experienced  great  facilities  from  the  accommo- 
dating spirit  and  energetic  exertions  of  the  contractor. 

SAMUEL  L.  GOUVERNEUR. 


New  York,  Feb.  9,  1832. 
Dear  Sir  :  Enclosed  you  will  receive  the  certificates  to  show  the  deten- 
tion at  the  New  York  post  office,  as  also  the  additionalexpense  I  have  been 
at  in  order  to  accommodate  the  ship  letters,  &c. ;  this  I  hope  will  be  entirely 
satisfactory.  fVm.  M.  Brown  will  go  on  with  me  from  this  city  to  the 
west  in  a  few  days.  I  have  no  doubt  the  Postmaster  General  will  allow  me 
the  whole  account,  as  it  is  nothing  but  justice,  and  1  am  well  aware  that  is 
all  he  wants. 

Respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JAS.  REESIDE. 
Rev.  0.  B.  Brown, 

General  Post  Office,  JVashington  City. 


[  Doc.  No.  105.  ] 

Post  Office  Department, 

December  30,  1834. 
Sir:  To  the  resolution  of  the  committee,  requesting  that  ''the  Postmas- 
ter General  communicate  the  reasons  for  the  employment  of  the  express 
mail  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York  from  the  30th  of  January  to  the 
8th  of  March,  1833,  and  what  was  transmitted  by  that  conveyance,  and: 
copies  of  the  instructions  given  relative  thereto,  to  the  different  Postmasters- 
from  Washington  city  to  the  city  of  New  York,  both  inclusive;  also,, 
copies  of  the  vouchers  upon  which  the  allowance  for  compensation  foi'  that 
service  was  made;"  I  have  the  honor  to  reply,  that  the  attitude  in  which 
South  Carolina  stood  towards  other  States  in  the  Union,  and  the  course 
then  pursuing  by  the  National  Executive  towards  that  State,  appears  to  have 
excited  in  the  minds  of  the  citizens,  of  the  politicians,  and  of  the  com- 
mercial community  of  the  city  of  New  York,  feelings  of  such  deep  interest^ 
that  a  private  express  was  established  by  the  proprietors  of  one  of  the  daily^ 
newspapers  of  that  city,  to  run  daily  between  Philadelphia  and  New  Yorky 
by  which  the  news  Irom  the  south  and  from  the  seat  of  Government  was 
anticipated  by  that  paper  one  day  in  advance  of  those  who  depended  upon 
the  mail  for  intelligence.  This  was  likely  to  produce  an  effect  deeply  in- 
jurious to  the  mercantile  interests  of  that  great  commercial  emporium. 
There  wae  also  reason  to  believe  that  the  private  express  would  convey  all 


291  [  86  ] 

kinds  of  mailable  matter,  including  leiters  and  packets,  for  the  proprietors 
and  their  friends,  which  wquld  very  sensibly  affect  the  revenues  as  well  as 
the  character  of  the  department.  Under  these  circumstances  it  was  deemed 
a  duty  which  the  department  owed  to  itself  and  to  the  public,  to  counteract 
these  effects,  by  establishing  a  public  express  during  the  emergency  which 
had  given  rise  to  that  which  had  been  established  by  individuals.  Accord- 
ingly, I  gave  directions  to  the  contractor,  that  after  the  arrival  of  the  southern 
mail  in  Philadelphia,  all  the  exchange  papers  from  the  south  for  editors  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  and  all  the  letters  for  the  New  York  city  delivery, 
should  be  immediately  despatched  by  a  horse  express  for  New  York;  that 
it  should  be  run  through  in  six  hours,  or  in  the  shortest  time  practicable,  and 
that  it  should  return  from  New  York  under  the  same  speed,  leaving  imme- 
diately after  the  arrival  of  the  Boston  mail,  with  all  exchange  newspapers 
from  the  east  and  north  for  the  Philadelphia  editors,  and  all  letters  for  the 
Philadelphia  delivery.  He  was  also  directed  to  outrun  any  and  every  ex- 
press upon  that  route,  and  to  send  two  or  more  horses  each  trip,  if  one 
should  not  be  sufficient. 

I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  copies  of  all  the  correspondence  on  this  sub- 
ject, by  reference  to  which  it  will  be  seen  that  this  arrangement  was  called 
for  by  the  editors  of  the  other  daily  newspapers  of  the  city  of  New 
York. 

I  also  enclose  copies  of  the  vouchers  upon  which  the  allowance  for  com- 
pensation for  that  service  was  made. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be, 

With  great  respect, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

W.  T.  BARRY. 

(The  copies  above  referred  to  are  to  be  fourid  in  documents  No.  106  to  120 

inclusive.) 


[Doc.  No.  106.] 
(No.  1.)  Post  Office  Department, 

Office  of  Mail  Contracts,  January  22,  1833. 

Sir:  It  has  been  reported  to  the  department  that  some  of  the  newspaper 
editors  have  established  an  express  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia  to 
outrun  the  mail.  This  is  a  direct  violation  of  the  law,  and  all  concerned 
will  beheld  accountable.  Please  communicate  all  the  information  you  have 
or  can  obtain  upon  the  subject.  But  the  main  object  of  this  letter  is  to  say, 
that  the  Postmaster  General  directs  that  you  shall  outrun  any  and  every  ex- 
press upon  that  route,  whatever  expense  it  may  involve.  Please  state  the 
shortest  possible  time  in  which  you  can  run  from  office  to  office  between  the 
two  cities,  and  accomplish  it.  Do  not  state  a  shorter  time  than  you  can  ac- 
complish it  in,  but  set  the  time  and  let  it  be  done.  Remember,  this  is  an 
•enterprise  that  calls  upon  all  the  energies  of  the  "celebrated  Reeside,"  and 
you  must  beat  every  express  at  least  an  hour,  and  as  much  more  as  you  can. 
The  credit  of  the  department  is  inyplved,  and  we  look  to  you  with  confi> 


[  86  ]  £92 

dence  to  redeem  it.     No  labor  or  expense  to  be  spared  in  doing  so.     Please 
answer.    Begin  immediately.     The  department  will  not  let  you  lose  by  it.  1 

I  am,  respectfully,  '  '• 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN, 
Superintendent  of  Contracts. 
James  Reeside,  Esq., 

Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania. 

[  Doc.  No.  107.  ] 
(No-  2.)  Philadelphia,  January  25,  1833. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  favor  dated  the  22d  instant  has  just  came  to  hand? 
which  I  have  examined  with  much  care,  but  must  confess  myself  at  a  loss  I 

to  come  at  the  exaet  meaning  it  is  intended  to  convey. 

That  there  is  at  present  and  has  been  for  some  time  back  an  express  car- 
ried on  horseback  between  this  city  and  New  York  is  a  fact  which  is  well 
known,  and  which  is  publicly  acknowledged  by  the  newspapers  in  New 
York.  That  it  is  impossible  to  carry  the  ivhole  of  the  great  eastern  mail 
through  in  coaches  or  otherwise  with  the  same  speed  that  a  small  package 
can  be  carried  through  on  horseback  is  a  fact  that  requires  no  comment. 

Not  having  pointed  out  this  matter  clearly  in  your  letter  whether  it  was 
the  wish  of  the  department  that  a  certain  portion  of  mails  should  be  sent  by 
express  to  New  York,  or  that  the  whole  of  the  great  eastern  mail  should  be 
expedited  so  as  to  reach  New  York  at  an  earlier  hour  than  it  now  does. 

Should  it  be  the  latter,  I  would  at  once  assure  the  departmemt  of  the  im- 
possibility of  having  it  carried  through  in  as  short  a  time  as  it  is  now  carried 
by  express  on  horseback. 

In  either  case,  the  department  may  rest  assured'of  my  willingness  and  de- 
termination to  use  every  exertion  in  order  te-meet  the  views  and  wishes 
of  the  department.  Should  you  desire  it  to  be  sent  by  express,  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  I  can  have  it  sent  through  in  a  shorter  time  than 
it  can  be  done  by  any  other  individual  in  the  country. 

This  will  be  handed  to  you  by  Mr.  Swing,  whom  I  have  sent  on  with  di- 
rections to  ascertain  from  you  personally  your  views  of  this  matter,  and  who 
will  give  you  all  the  information  respecting  the  express  that  has  been  sent 
from  this  to  New  York  alluded  to  in  your  letter. 

With  respect, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JAS.  REESIDE. 
Rer;  O.  B.  Bi:own, 

Post  Office  Department,  Washington  City. 

N.  B.  I  will  say  to  a  certainty  I  will  go  from  this  city  to  New  York  in; 
6  hours,  or  faster  than  any  other  one  can  do  it» 

J.  REESIDE. 


[Doc.  No.  108.  ] 
C  No.  di  )  Post  Office  Department, 

Offi,ce  of  Mail  Contracts,  January  28,  1833, 
Sib:  Mr.  Ewioe  has  presented  your  letter  of  the  25th.     The  Postmaster 


S93  t  ^6  ] 

all  the  ©xchnnge  papers  from  the  south  for  editors  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
and  all  the  letters  for  the  New  York  city  delivery,  shall  be  immediately 
despatched  by  a  horse  express  for  New  York,  and  that  in  the  shortest  pos- 
sible time,  say  in  six  hours  from  office  to  office;  so  as  to  leave  Philadelphia 
say  at  one,  and  deliver  at  New  York  by  seven;  or  leave  Philadelphia  at  an 
earlier  hour,  if  the  mail  shall  arrive  from  the  south  in  time  to  do  so,  and 
deliver  it  as  much  earlier.  Return  from  New  York  under  the  same  speed, 
leaving  immediately  after  the  arrival  of  the  Boston  mail,  with  all  exchange 
newspapers  from  the  east  and  north  for  the  Philadelphia  editors,  and  all 
letters  for  the  Philadelphia  delivery,  and  arrive  at  the  post  office  in  Phila- 
delphia in  six  hours,  or  in  the  shortest  time  practicable.  This  arrangement 
is  to  be  continued  daily,  till  the  steamboat  mails  shall  become  regular  as 
during  the  summer  establishment. 

If  one  horse  is  not  sufficient  to  carry  it,  you  will  send  two  or  more,  no  it 
may  be  done,  and  the  weight  properly  divided. 

Directions  will  be  given  to  the  postmasters  in  both  cities  to  have  their 
offices  open  for  the  delivery  of  letters  after  the  arrival  of  those  mails,  and 
for  the  delivery  to' editors  of  their  exchange  newspapers. 

Let  this  express  be  noted  in  the  papers. 
1  am,  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN, 
Superintendent  of  Mail  Contracts. 

James  Reeside,  Esq.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

[  Doc.  No.  109.  ] 
(  No.  4.  )  Post  Office  Department, 

Office  of  Mail  Cotitracts,  January  28,  1833. 
Sir:  The  Postmaster  General  has  established  an  express  mail  to  be  car- 
ried on  horseback  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  to  leave  Philadel- 
phia as  soon  as  you  can  despatch  it  after  the  arrival  of  the  southern  mail,  to 
take  all  exchange  newspapers  from  the  south  for  editors  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  all  letters  (both  from  the  south  and  those  originally  mailed  at 
your  office)  for  the  New  York  city  delivery  only.  In  the  same  manner  it 
will  return  from  New  York  after  the  arrival  of  the  Boston  mail  at  that  city, 
with  letters  and  exchange  papers  for  the  Philadelphia  delivery. 

The  Postmaster  General  directs  that  you  det:patch  this  mail  with  all  pos- 
sible expedition  after  the  arrival  of  the  southern  mail,  and  you  always  have 
your  office  open  at  night  for  the  receiving  of  the  express,  and  keep  it  open 
for  the  immediate  delivery  of  the  exchange  papers  and  the  letters  that  may 
be  received  by  it. 

Please  give  notice  to  editors  that  they  may  receive  their  exchange  papers 
from  the  north  after  the  arrival  of  this  mail  at  night,  whatever  may  be  the 
hour  of  its  arrival. 

I  am,  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN, 
Sif.perintendent  of  Mail  Contracts. 
Postmaster,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

(Similar  instructions  to  the  postmaster  of  New  York.) 


[  86  3  ^^4 

[Doc.  No.  110.  ] 
(  No.  5.  )  Post  Office  Department, 

Office  of  Mail  Contracts,  February  9,  1834. 
Sir:  It  is  understood  that  the  editors  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce  have 
established  rai  express  between  Philadelphia  and  Washington,  to  connect 
with  the  Government  express  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York;  for 
which  purpose  they  have  removed  their  horses  from  the  road  between  the 
two  last  mentioned  cities,  and  placed  them  between  Philadelphia  and 
Washington.  To  counteract  this  plan  as  far  as  practicable,  you  are 
requested  not  to  send  by  the  express  running  between  Philadelphia  and 
New  York,  any  thing  which  has  not  been  received  at  your  office  from  the 
south  by  the  regular  mail,  or  which  was  not  originally  mailed  at  your  office 
for  the  New  York  delivery. 

The  object  is  to  prevent  the  express  of  the  department  from  being  m  any 
way  auxiliary  to  the  express  established  by  the  editors. 
I  am,  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN, 
Superintendent  of  Mail  Contracts, 
Postmaster,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


[Doc.  No.  111.] 

(No.   6.)  Post  Office,  New  York, 

January  28,  1835. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 

25th  instant. 

The  Journal  of  Commerce  first  established  a  daily  express,  between  Phila- 
delphia and  this  city,  after  which,  as  T  understand  by  general  arrangement 
amono-  some,  if  not  all  of  the  morning  papers,  a  second  express  was  esta- 
blished for  the  same  objects.  I  had  made  some  inqijiries  on  the  subject 
before  the  receipt  of  your  letter,  intending:  to  communicate  the  facts  to  the 
departmi  nt.  I  have  the  best  reason  to  believe  that  all  kinds  of  mailable 
matter  are  brought  daily  by  these  expresses.  An  arrangement  is  made  by 
an  understanding  with  their  agents  and  others,  that  all  mailable  matters  for 
them,  including  letters  and  packets,  be  addressed  from  the  south  to  the  office 
at  Philadelphia",  whence  they  are  conveyed  to  this  city  by  express.  I  pre- 
sume it  is  done  under  the  claim  to  employ  special  messengers.  The  use  of 
the  means  of  the  department  to  a  certain  point,  with  a  view  of  defeat,  on 
another  branch  of  the  route,  the  very  object  for  which  the  mails  are  esta- 
blished and  maintained,  appeared  to  be  the  subject  of  peculiar  abuse. 

Any  further  information  within  rriy  reach  will  be  promptly  communi- 
cated,  and  such  views  as  you  may  deem  proper  to  direct  enforced  with 
energy  at  this  office. 

With  great  respect. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

SAMUEL  L.  GOUVERNEUR. 
The  Postmaster  General  of  the  United  States. 


^95  [  86  3 

[Doc.  No.  112.  ] 
(No.  7.)  Post  Office,  New  Yore, 

February  1,  1833. 

Sir:  The  express  mall  from  Philadelphia  arrived  here  Jast  evening  at 
9.30  o'clock,  bringing  letters  and  a  few  slips  for  the  editors,  but  no  news- 
papers.    Why  the  latter  were  not  brought  we  are  not  accurately  informed. 

The  same  mail  was  despatched  from  the  office  this  morning  12.30,  being 
20  minutes  after  the  arrival  of  the  eastern  mail.  We  sent  a  large  portman- 
teau, containing  all  the  letters  as  included  in  your  instructions,  and  some 
papers  from  the  east,  as  well  as  others  from  this  city.  If  it  be  intended 
that  the  newspapers  from  the  east,  all  of  ihem  for  editors,  should  be  forwarded 
in  this  mode,  1  fear  it  will  not  be  possible  to  do  so  by  a  horse  express,  and 
that  a  portion  of  them  must  be  detained  here  until  other  means  of  convey- 
ance are  provided.  If  arrangements  could  be  made  at  the  east  to  bring  the 
papers  for  editors  in  a  separate  bag,  it  would  greatly  facilitate  this  process. 
To  detain  the  express  here  until  ail  the  newspapers  are  assorted,  selecting 
those  and  all  of  them  for  edi^rs  from  the  mass,  would  operate  seriously 
in  point  of  time  to  defeat  the  intentions  of  the  department.  In  the  com- 
mencement of  this  system,  due  allowance  will  no  doubt  be  made  for  some 
irregularities  and  defects;  but  with  a  single  eye  to  give  all  effect  in  my 
power  to  the  views  in  which  it  originated,  every  effort  will  be  made  at  this 
office  to  contribute  to  that  result. 

With  great  respect, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

SAMUEL  L.  GOUVERNEUR. 
0.  B.  Brown,  Esq., 

SupeTintendent  General  Post  Office,  Washington. 


[Doc.  No.  113.] 
(No.  S.)  Trenton,  February  25,  1833. 

Dear  Sir:  You  will  perceive  by  the  enclosed  that  I  have  attended  to 
your  directions  as  far  as  practicable.  It  is  their  own  exposition  of  the  mat- 
ter, and  such  as  they  gave  me. 

I  neglected  to  mention  to  you  in  my  letter  of  yesterday,  that  the  cauise 
of  the  private  express  beating  that  of  the  Government,  alluded  to  in  Mr. 
Mumford's  letter,  was  owing  to  but  one  cause. 

Their  express  came  through  from  Washington. 

The  Government  express  from  Philadelphia,  after  the  arrival  of  the  steam- 
boat, giving  the  newspaper  express  the  start  of  six  hours  in  advance  of  that 
of  the  Government.  The  lateness  of  the  succeeding  arrivals  originated 
from  the  cause  mentioned  in  the  enclosed  letter.  No  mail  having  arrived 
from  the  south,  they  supposed,  from  the  lateness  of  the  arrival  of  the  express 
the  following  night,  that  there  would  not  be  any  more. 

This  was  caused  by  the  late  arrival  of  the  steamboat,  and  no  preparation 
was  made  on  the  road  for  taking  it  on.  This  is  their  excuse;  whether  it 
will  pass  current  is  for  you  to  determine.  I  have  just  received  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Withington  on  the  subject;  he  attaches  the  blame  to  Thompson's  bad 
horse,  &c. 


[  86  1  2d6 

I  think  we  shall  be  able  to  get  the  mail  [through  in  time  to  connect  with 
the  boat,  should  the  roads  not  get  worse  than  they  now  are. 

The  mail  arrived  in  Philadelphia  this  morning  at  (i  o'clock.  I  have  good 
reason  for  believing  that  it  will  continue,  unless  a  change  should  take  place 
in  the  roads. 

The  mail  has  left  Jersey  City  the  last  few  days  at  a  few  minutes  past 
3  o'clock  P.  M,,  and  will  continue  to  leave  at  that  hour,  unless  you  direct 
otherwise;  that  is,  3  o'clock. 

The  teams  intended  for  the  national  road  are  here  to  night,  and  start  to- 
morrow for  the  west;  they  are  twelve  in  number,  Jersey  stock. 

Yours  respectfully, 

D.  EWING. 
Colonel  James  Reeside. 

P.  S.  No  opposition  express  for  the  last  four  days.  Your  express  horses 
are  in  good  order,  with  but  two  exceptions. 


[Doc.  No.  114.] 

(No.  9.)  Trenton,  February  25,  1833. 

Sir:  Mr.  Ewlng  came  here  this  evening,  and  complains  that  there  has 
been  three  failures  of  the  express  arriving  at  New  York  in  time,  and  wishes 
us  to  state  the  reasons.  As  near  as  we  can  recollect,  there  was  no  mail  from 
the  south  the  day  previous  to  the  first  day  the  mail  came  in  the  boat.  Our 
riders  remained  up  on  the  lookout  nearly  all  that  night;  the  next  night  the 
mail  came  from  the  boat,  and  arrived  late  in  Trenton.  Our  riders  were 
ready,  and  went  off  immediately  after  its  arrival;  but  the  men  upon  the  road, 
supposing  there  would  be  no  mail,  (as  it  missed  the  night  previous,)  after 
waiting  until  a  late  hour  went  to  bed,  which  caused  much  delay  at  the  places 
of  changing,  which  was  the  reason  of  the  first  failure:  the  second  and  third 
we  cannot  account  for  in  an}''  other  way  than  the  fact  of  the  nights  being  ex- 
tremely dark,  and  the  roads  being  extremely  bad,  almost  to  the  horses, 
knees,  together  with  the  late  arrivals  at  Trenton;  the  time  we  do  not  recol- 
lect. 

As  to  those  particular  evenings  of  the  failures^  there  was  no  bills  to  mark 
the  time  on,  and  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  say  where  the  fault  lies.  You  know 
about  our  Jersey  roads,  after  the  breaking  up  of  the  frost;  they  are,  I  need 
not  tell  you  how  bad. 

The  express  arrived  here  this  evening  at  five  minutes  past  eight  o'clock. 
We  think  there  will  be  no  failure  hereafter.  During  the  two  or  three  days 
that  the  opposition,  express  run,  we  done  all  that  could  possibly  be  done.  One 
day  they  were  nearly  an  hour  ahead  of  us  at  Trenton,  and  we  run  in  with 
them  at  Jersey  City,  as  I  was  informed.  One  day  they  were  so  far  ahead 
that  there  was  no  chance,  having  gone  through  to  Kingston  and  returned  to 
Trenton  with  the  same  horse,  and  all  that  before  our  express  arrived  from 
Philadelphia. 

Respectfully, 

(For  Hutchinson  and  Weart,) 

D.  HUTCHINSON 
Col.  James  Reeside. 


297  [  86  ] 

Sir:  Mr.  Hutchinson  has  given  you  the  particulars  concerning  the  delays 
of  the  ex])ress,  all  except  that  he  has  not  |)ut  the  roads  as  had  nor  the  nights 
as  dark  as  they  really  was,  and  there  was  one  night  the  mail  laid  at  the 
Hook  two  or  three  hours  before  they  could  find  any  one  to  take  it  over:  it 
was  so  late  at  night,  and  the  hoys  did  not  know  where  to  find  Col.  Dodd, 
was  the  reason  I  believe. 

Yours,  &c., 

W.  H.  STEBBS, 

For  Stehbs  S,-  HlUy'd, 


[Doc.  No.  115.] 

(No.  10.)  New  York,  February  7,  1833. 

Sir:  You  will  perceive  from  the  enclosed  notice  that  the  Journal  of  Com- 
merce of  this  city  has  made  an  arrangement  to  run  an  express  from  Wash- 
ington city  to  Philadelphia,  for  the  purpose  of  availing  tnemselves  of  the 
Government  express  between  Philadelphia  and  this  city,  and  thereby  anti- 
cipate the  mail  and  the  Government  express  one  day.  We  call  your  atten- 
tion to  tlie  subject,  in  the  iiope  that  the  department  over  which  you  pre- 
side Will  immediately  nip  the  plan  in  the  bud,  b_y  putting  on  a  similar  ex- 
press, which  we  presume  need  not  last  more  than  a  week  or  two,  and  which 
would  effectually  put  a  stop  to  such  proceedings.  Confiiding  in  the  belief 
that  you  will  consider  the  measure  expedient,  we  shall  refrain  from  doing 
any  thing  until  we  receive  your  reply  to  this  communication.  Waiting 
with  patience  till  return  of  mail. 

We  are,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servants, 

JOFIN  LANG  &  CO.,  New  York  Gazelle. 

D WIGHT,  TOWNSEND  &  CO.,  N.  Y.  Daily  Advertiser. 

JAS.  WATSON  WEBB,  Courier  and  Enquirer. 

AMOS   BCTLER,  Mercantile  Advertiser. 

REDWOOD  FISHER,  Advocate  and  Journal. 

JOHN  I.  MUNFORD,  New  York  Standard. 
Hon.  W.  T.  Barry, 

Postmaster  General. 


fc* 


[Doc.  No.  116.] 
(No.  11.) 

Daily  express,  one  day  in  advance  of  the  Government  express,  and  tioo 
days  in  advance  of  the  mail. 

The  editors  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce  have  made  arrangements  to  re- 
ceive the  Washington  papers  during  the  remainder  of  the  session  of  Con- 
gress, on  the  same  day  that  they  arc  printed.,  being  one  day  in  advance 
of  the  Government  express,  and  two  days  in  advance  of  the  mail.  If  the 
former  arrangement  was  acceptable  to  the  public,  it  is  fair  to  presume  that 
this  will  be  still  more  so.  There  is  no  excuse  for  the  dilatory  course  o{  the 
mail,  at  a  time  when  the  whole  community  is  on  the  alert  for  the  news 
which  it  brings;  nor  in  fact  is  the  Government  express  at  all  up  to  the  mark 
38 


298 


when  such  important  interests  are  peniling.  As  the  Government  have 
deigned  to  become  imitators  of  our  former  enterprise,  we  shall  be  curious  to 
learn  whether  they  will  imitare  us  also  in  the  jjresent.  At  any  rate  our 
readers  may  rest  assured  that,  barring  accident.'^,  the  jjro-ceeding-?  of  Congress, 
in  one  way  or  other,  shall  be  inserted  in  the  Journal  of  Commerce  during 
the  remainder  of  the  session  the  next  morning  afier  they  are  published  in 
Washington. 

We  shall  still  thus  be  able  to  publish  these  important  proceedings  one  day 
in  advance  of  any  of  our  morning  cotemporaries,  and  )o  send  them  off  by  the 
eastern  and  northern  mails,  one  day  sooner  than  they  can  be  obtained 
through  any  other  paj)er,  whether  published  in  Washington  or  New  York. 

Our  arrangements  are  nearly  or  quite  completed,  and  we  expect  to  re- 
ceive this  evening  the  Washington  papers  of  this  morning.  At  all  events, 
the  operation  will  not  be  delayed  beyond  a  day  or  two,  at  farthest.  The 
distance  from  Washington  to  this  city  is  227  miles.  Editors  who  approve  of 
rubbing  off  the  dust  and  cobwebs  of  olden  time,  and  giving  to  the  trans- 
mission of  intelligence  a  little  of  the  same  energj'  which  is  introduced  into 
various  other  departments  of  business,  will  be  good  enough  to  notice  this  ar- 
rangement in  their  columns. 

HALE  &  HALLOCK. 

iN'EW  York,  J'H.  7,  1833. 

[Doc.  No.  117.] 

.     [No.  12.] 
Post  Office  Department,  To  James  Rceside,  Dr. 

For  running  the  express  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York,  it  being 
ninety  miles  each  way,  by  special  orders  from  the  Postmaster  General,  from 
January  30th  till  8th  March,  1833,  it  being  thirty-eight  tripf^;  that  is  to  say, 
that  two  horses  run  each  way  every  day  till  March  8th,  1833,  making  one 
hundred  and  fifty-two  trips,  at  ninety  miles  each  trip,  at  ^1  00  per  mile  for 
each  horse  .--.--  $13,680  00 

Which,  I  believe,  has  been  the  customary  price  for  merchants 
and  business  people  for  the  last  twenty-five  years,  to  carr}'  a 
letter  or  weight  not  to  exceed  two  pounds,  which  it  took  se- 
venty-two horses  to  cover  the  road. 

And  an  account  of  the  vveight  from  ten  1o  one  hundred 
pounds,  and  if  you  recollect  the  roads  were  very  bad  at  that  ' 
time,  and  the  weather  was  very  changeable;  for  a  day  or  two 
it  would  be  frozen  to  about  half  bear  the  horses,  and  perhaps  the 
next  day  it  would  he  frozen  so  hard  and  so  rough  that  it  jammed 
the  horses'  limbs  all  to  pieces;  and  perhaps  in  two  or  three  days 
it  would  thaw,  and  the  mud  would  be  ankle  deep;  and  I  found 
the  horses  were  all  breaking  down,  for  it  was  impossible  to  keep 
up  the  time  and  carry  the  weight,  and  I  was  obliged  to  put  on 
twenty-eight  horses  more,  which,  making  one  hundred  horses 
in  the  whole,  for  which  I  have  charged  you      -  -  -      2,500  00 

$16, ISO  00 
The  loss  on  extra  horses,  and  expenses,  and  keeping  ihem  till 
disposed  of,  and  commission  for  selling,  and  my  agents  attending 


299  C  S6  ] 

to  the  same,  that  is  to  say?  to  place  on  horses  where  one   would   fail,  so  as 
not  lo  have  any  delay,  so  as  to  keep  the  express  up. 

City  or  PniLADKLrniA. 

On  the  12th  day  of  December,  1833,  before  me,  the  subscriber,  one  of 
the  aldermen  of  the  city  of  Philadelphi'i,  personally  came  William  King, 
Thomas  Cornwell,  and  Stephen  Heartwell,  who,  on  their  solemn  oath, 
do  depose  and  say,  that  they  have  for  several  years,  and  are  at  this  time 
engaged  in  running  expresses,  and  business  connected  therewith;  that  they 
have  examined  the  within  account,  and  from  their  knowledge  of  the  ser- 
vices perforined  as  therein  slated,  they  consider  the  charges  therei;^  as  en- 
tirely fair  and  reasonable,  and  no  more  than  a  just  remuneration  for  said 
services,  and  the  necessary  expenses  connected  tlierev>-ith. 

VVM.  KING, 
THOS.    <'ORN,WELL, 
STEPHEN  HEARTVVELL. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  bcloic  uic,  this  12th  d.av  of  December,  18:53. 

"WM.  MILNOR,  ^Id. 


(No.  13.)  [Doc.  No.  118.] 

Philadelphia,  December  12,  1833. 

This  is  to  certify,  tliat  I  have  had  charge  of  Mr.  James  Reeside's  «'or.k  of 
horses  from  January  1st,  1833,  to  the  present  time;  and  respecting  the  ex- 
tra stock  which  was  put  on  the  road  between  Philadelphia  and  New  York, 
on  the  express,  say  from  January  30th  lo  8th  Marcli,  1833,  on  account  of 
weight  which  we  had  to  carry;  and  hf^  was  compelled  to  put  on  extra  horses 
to  keep  it  up  in  time  that  was  required;  he  wished  me  to  dispose  of  the 
stock  to  the  best  advantage  to  do  justice  to  the  department  and  himself, 
without  loss  or  gain  to  either  party.  And  according  to  the  best  of  my  judg- 
ment, with  the  expenses  that  was  reasonably  to  be  expectetl,  ami  the  keep 
of  horses  and  t!ie  loss  of  stock,  the  charge  which  JMr.  Reeside  has  made 
of  Ivventy-five  hundred  dollars,  is  as  right  as  n)y  judgment  will  serve  me, 
to  dojusli(>cto  both  parties. 


Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me. 


STEPHEN  HE ARTWELL. 
WILLIAM  MILNOK,  Jlld. 


[Doc.  xNo.  II 9. J 
(No.  M.)  PiiiladkIt-phia,  December^  1S33, 

This  is  to  certify,  that  1  wdl  run  the  express  from  Philadelphia  to  Jersey 
city,  so  callcfl  at  the  Hudson  river,  and  carry  weight  not  lo  exceed  twenty 
pounds  to  each  horse,  at  one  hundred  dollars  for  each  way,  and  the  time  not 
to  exceed  six  hours,  unless  some  unforeseen  accident  should  take  place. 

N.  B.  And  in  case  this  contract  should  be  ma  le,  it  i.s  to  :;ay  it  shall 
last  for  twenty  days,  and  as  much  longer  as  the  department  pleases,  at  the 
rates  as  above  described,  and  by  giving  five  days'  notice  it  will  commence. 


I  8S    ] 


300 


[Doc.  No.  120.  J 
[No.  15.]  January  1,  1S34. 

Sir:  1  have  long  known  Mr.  Stephen  Heartwell,  now  of  Philadelphia. 
He  is  an  intelligent,  active  man,  quite  competent  to  .'•uich  employment  as 
I  understand  3011  are  desirous  of  obtaining  for  him. 

I  should  be  glad  if  you  .should  be  able  In  bring  about  what  he  wishes  in 
thi-s  respect. 

With  regard, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

DANL.   WEBSTER. 
J  AS.  REKsiDi;,  Esq. 


[Doc.  No.  121.] 


DAVID  HALE. 


December  22,  1834. 

David  Hale,  of  New  York,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers 
to  the  respective  interrogatories,  to  wit: 

Question  I.  Did  you  at  any  time  run  an  express  from  Philadelphia  or 
Port  Deposite  to  New  York;  if  so,  state  when,  and  how  long. 

Answer  ).  Yes;  ourexpress  began  to  run  between  Philadelphia  and 
New'  York  about  14th  January,  1S33,  and  continued  until  1st  February 
following,  during  which  time  it  ran  through  about  fifteen  trips.  At  this 
time  the  Government  express  was  put  on  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York, 
and  we  withdrew  ours,  and  placed  it  on  the  road  from  Washington  to  Phila- 
delphia We  began  to  run  here,  Washington,  about  the  4th  of  February,  and 
run  four  trips  on  this  route.  We  ceased  to  run  between  Philadelphia  and  I;^evv 
H.  ork,  because  the  Government  express  was  put  on  the  same  road,  and  carried 
the  same  matter  which  we  had  been  carrying.  After  we  ran  the  four 
trips  from  Washington  to  Philadelphia,  anticipating  the  mail  one  day,  and 
desired  to  send  on  our  packages  thus  brought  from  Washington,  the  Govern- 
ernment  express  at  Philadelptiia  refused  to  receive  and  carry  them  on  to  N. 
York,  and  we  were  again  compelled  to  resume  our  express  from  Philadelphia 
to  New  York,  covering  the  whole  distance  from  Washington.  We  conti- 
nued our  express  on  the  whole  line  from  about  the  12th  February  to  Tues- 
day, the  5th  March,  on  which  'day  it  brought  us  the  inaugural  address  of  the 
President,  and  all  the  important  news  of  the  final  action  of  Congress  on  the 
land  bill,  ixc.  The  other  express  mail  bringing  the  inaugural  address  and  the 
proceedings  of  Congress  on  Saturday  the  2d,  did  not  arrive  until  more  than 
twenty-four  hours  afterwards.  We  ran  through  from  Washington  to  New 
York  ten  times:  though  our  expref^ses,  during  the  lime  we  had  ihemon,  lost 
one  whole  week,  in  consequence  of  incorrect  information  given  to  our  corres- 
pondent at  Washington.     The  expense,  however,  continued. 

Question  2.      What  was  carried  in  your  express? 

Answer  2.  When  we  began  to  run  from  Philadelphia  our  correspondent 
addressed  our  packages  and  Washington  newspapers,  and  the  southern  papers, 
to  that  place;  the  regular  mail  arrived  from  the  south,  at  that  place,  about 
ten  o'clock  A.  M.,  and  did  not  leave  till  three  or  four  P.  M.  We  took 
out  all  packages,  &.c,    for  us,  and  started  so  as  to  arrive  m  the  night  in  time 


301  [  ^6  ] 

to  have  the  Congressional  anci  southern  news  inserted  in  our  morning  papers. 
The  regular  mail  did  not  arrive  nnlil  after  our  morning  j)apers  were  dis- 
tributed, so  that  we  were  one  whole  day  ahead  of  the  other  morning  papers; 
this  was  our  first  arrangement.  After  the  Government  express  was  put  no 
and  our  horses  were  transferred  to  the  road  from  Washington  to  Philadelphia, 
we  still  anticipated  one  day,  because  we  started  at  four  P.  M.,  and  carried 
the  Congressional  proceedings  of  the  day  into  Philadelphia,  so  as  to  over- 
take the  mail  which  had  left  Washington  at  two  A.  M.  of  the  same  day; 
but  the  Government  express  refusing  to  cany  our  packages  from  Philadel- 
phia, coinpelled  us  to  run  through  the  whole  distance. 

Our  express  did  not  run  both  ways;  but,  of  course,  our  expresses  had  tore- 
turn  to  their  respective  stations.  Running  both  ways  would  have  cost  some- 
thing more,  but  nothing  like  double. 

No  persons  were  concerned  with  me  and  my  partner  in  running  this  ex- 
press. One  of  the  editors  in  Philadelphia  contributed  a  small  sum  for  ac- 
commodating him  while  we  ran  through  from  Washington. 

We  slopped  because  Congress  had  adjourned;  and,  of  course,  the  interest 
to  hear  early  news  subsided. 

Question  3.      Who  carried  this  express  for  you? 

Answer  3.  When  we  began  to  run  between  Philadelphia  and  New 
York  we  put  on  our  own  horses,  nine  or  ten  in  number.  We  had  at  first  to 
each  horse  a  rider,  who  took  care  of  him;  and  we  were  to  board  them  and 
pay  them  about  twelve  dollars  per  month;  they  were  good  stout  boys.  The 
board  of  a  horse  and  rider  was  about  six  dollars  per  week. 

We  paid  Murphy,  who  rode  the  whole  distance  I'rom  Washington  to  Bal- 
timore during  the  whole  time  we  ran,  at  the  rate  of  ten  dollars  per  week, 
and  he  found  himself.  After  we  resumed  our  ex])ress  between  Pliilndel- 
phia  and  New  York,  we  contracted  with  Drake  and  McClintoch,  of  New- 
ark, New  Jersey,  to  carry  it  through  for  fifty  dollars  a  trip. 

For  one  week  we  paid  Mr,  Fuller,  of  Washington,  twenty  dollars  a  trip, 
from  Washington  to  Baltimore,  until  ne  was  obliged  to  give  up  his  contract, 
in  consequence,  as  he  informed  me,  of  a  note  from  one  of  the  clerks  of  the 
Department.  I  saw  the  note,  but  do  not  recollect  the  name  of  the  person 
who  wrote  it.  We  hired  one  horse-from  Mr,  King,  a  livery  stable  keeper, 
in  Philadelphia,  for  one  dollar  and  fifty  cents  per  day,  for  thirt}'  seven 
days;  and  also  fiom  Mr.  Schank,  at  about  the  same  price:  wc  paid  their  li- 
very.    Mr.  Schank's  bill  amounted  to   S143  50. 

Question  4.      What  did  your  whole  expenses  amount  to.'^ 

Answer  4.  Our  actual  expense,  including  hire  of  horses,  loss  on  sales  of 
horses,  ferriages,  salary  of  agent,  travelling  expenses  to  Was.hington  and 
back,  postages,  and^eveiy  incidental  expense,  was  ^53,032  6^,  which,  with  the 
sum  paid  by  ]Mr.  Chandler,  of  Philadelphia,  would  come    to  about  $3,300. 

Question  5.  Did  you  run  ahead  of  the  Government  express  after  it  be- 
gan, or  not? 

Answer  5,  The  statements  made  in  the  Journal  of  Commerce  at  several 
times,  and  hereto  appended,  are  true,  according  to  the  best  of  my  know- 
lege,  as  to  the  time  of  our  respective  arrivals,  1  considered  that  the  Go- 
vernment express  accomplished  hardly  anything.  Ours  rlid  everything  we 
desired,  and  came  through  in  good  lime,  except  with  the  intei-ruptions  as  be- 
fore  stated. 

Question   G.    Did  you  pay  Mr.  Schauk  the  full  value  of  his  service,'*? 

Answer  6.      VJe   paid   him   what  he   asked,  and  I   have  no  doubt  it  w.is 


[  86  ]  302 

enough.  Tiicre  was  no  reason  why  ho  shoiiM  charge  less  than  the  full 
value  of  hiH  service?;  (lierc  vv;is  no  fricndshiji  in  it  ;  nothing  but  a  matter 
of  business. 


From  the  Np.w  York  Journal  of  Commerce^  Monday  morning,  March  4. 

GoA'EKNMENT  ExpuEss — 'The  Goveminent  express  established  in  oppo- 
sition to  our  present  arrangement,  commenced  running,  if  we  recollect  right, 
on  Wednesday,  February  20:  Its  achievements,  liius  far,  may  be  stated  a5 
follows: 

On  the  night  of  Wednesday,  Thursday:  February  20,  21.  Not  in  tilt 
all  the  mornin£  papers  were  worked  off. 

Thursday,  Friday:  21,  22.  Not  in  till  all  the  morning  papers  were 
worked  off 

Friday,  Saturday:  22,  23.  Arrived  about  3  o'clock  at  night.  lirief  sketch 
of  pioceedings  published  in  one  of  the  morning  papers. 

Saturdn}-,  Sunday:  23,  24.  No  use;  as  no  papers  are  published  here  on 
Sunday. 

Sunday,  Monday:  24,  25.  Arrived  in  season  for  the  morning  paper.>, 
bringing  letters  for  two  or  three  of  the  offices,  containing  the  proceedings  of 
Saturday. 

Monday,  Tue-^day:  25,  2G.  No  use;  as  it  brought  no  later  proceedings 
than  those  of  Satui-day,  which  had  been  already  published. 

Tuesday,  Wednesday:  2f),  27.  Brought  no  Washington  pa[)ers.  Letters 
for  two  or  three  of  the  editors. 

Wednesvday,  Tiiursday:  27,  28.  Arrived  soon  after  midniglit,  with 
Washington  papers  of  Wednesday. 

Thursday,  Fi'iday:  28,  March  1.  Arrived  about  six  o'clock  A.  M., 
after  all  the  morning  ])apers  were  worked  off. 

Friday,  Saturd.iv:  1,  2  Arrived  about  seven  o'clock  in  the  morning. 
Too  late  foi'lhe  papers.      Brought  nothing  from  beyond  Phihulelphia. 

Ri:CAriTULATioN. — Whole  number  of  times  run,  previous  to  the  date 
when  wc  write  (Saturday,  March  2,)  ten.  Failed  of  reaching  here  till  loo 
late  for  the  morning  papers,  four  linries;  brought  no  Washington  papers,  and 
letters  for  only  two  or  three  of  the  offices,  two;  no  use,  two;  arrived  so 
late  that  only  oi:o  of  the  papers  availed  itself  of  the  news,  one;  succeeded 
well,  one.  Total,  ten.  \Ve  understand  that  it  costs  the  Government,  every 
time  the  express  is  run,  S500;  which  multiplied  by  ten,  gives  $5,000  as 
the  total  expense.  Deducting  those  trijis  (eiglu)  in  which  the  express  fail- 
ed wholly,  or  in  part,  of  its  object,  the  average  expense  per  trip  appears  to 
be  •^2,500.  If  we  also  deduct  the  trip  of  Sunday,  Monday,  February  24, 
25,  when  it  bronglu  only  loiters,  and  those  for  but  two  or  ll)rec  of  the  of- 
fices, (there  being  no  Washington  papers  printed,)  the  average  cost  per 
trip  to  Uncle  Sam  appears  to  be  J55,000.  Thus  it  is  questionable,  after  all, 
whether  it  would  not  have  been  more  economical  to  the  Government,  if 
the  Postma-^ter  General  had  persevered  in  his  attempt  to  stop  our  ex[n'ess, 
instead  of  essaying  to  imitate  ns.  Had  he  seized  our  packages  by  force 
before  they  left  Washington,  we  would  have  settled  the  matter  for  55,000, 
without  carrying  it  into  court. 


303  [  56  3 

From  the  Ntiv  York  Jonrncd  of  Commerce,  Jl'ednefuluij  'monilng, 

March  6. 

At  half  pa?t  eight  o'clock  3'ostcr(iay  moniing,  oar  express  arrived  in 
nineteen  hours  and  a  half  iVoni  Washington,  bringing  us  the  President's  in- 
augural address,  which  was  delivered  at  the  Ca|)ifoI  on  Mondcy,  twelve 
o'clock  noo'n,  together  wilh  ail  the  Washington  papers  of  that  day,  con- 
taining the  closing  proceedings  of  the  twenty-second   Congress. 

Mr.  Clay's  land  bill  passed  the  House  of  Rej^resentatives  on  Friday  even- 
ing, with  an  amendment,  by  a  vote  of  i)0'  to  40.  It  uas  then  sent  back  to 
the  Senate,  and  the  amendment  concurred  in:  Yeas  25,  Noes  5.  Our  cor- 
respondent informs  us  that  the  President  has  withheld  Ms  signature  from 
this  bi/I,  wh.ch  is  equivalent  to  a  veto. 

The  two  houses  of  Congress  did  not  adjourn  sine  die  until  five  o'clock 
on  Sunday  morning. 


Correspondence  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce. 
TVushington,  Monday,  March  Aih,  half  past  twelve  o^  clock. 

General  Jackson  is  at  this  moment  reading  his  inaugural  address  to  a  most 
brilliant  assemblage  which  throngs  the  Hall  of  Representatives.  Your 
courier  will  stai't  with  a  copy  the   moment  he  has  flnished. 

JJoth  Houses  of  Congress  adjourned  at  half  past  five  o'clock  on  Monday 
morning.  The  President's  refusal  to  sign  the  land  bill  creates  almost  univer- 
sal dissatisfaction.  This  is  the  only  circumstance  which,  at  this  moment, 
disquiets  the  public  mind. 

'1'he  News. — It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  at  the  time  we  are  writing, 
(9  o'clock,  Tuesday  evening,)  there  are  no  accounts  in  the  city  from  Wash- 
ington, except  those  brought  by  our  own  express,  later  than  Saturday  morn- 
ing, or  strictly  speaking,  Friday  evening;  as  the  Washington  paj)ers  are 
put  to  press  about  8  o'clock,  P.  M.,  and  the  mail  for  the  north  is  closed  at 
nine  o'clock.  So  that,  after  all  our  efJbrts  to  reform  the  Post  Office  De- 
partment, the  latest  accounts  from  the  Capitol,  either  by  the  mail  or  the 
government  express,  are  full  four  days  old!  A  report  of  Saf^irday's 
Congressional  proceedings,  which  was  put  into  the  Washington  Post  Office 
on  Saturday  evening  by  our  reporter,  has  not  yet  reached  us,  although  by 
means  of  our  own  express  we  have  been  a  long  while  in  possession  of  the 
Washington  papers  of  Monda}',  and  other  accounts,  to  half  past  12  M.  of 
the  same  day. 

The  demand  for  our  extra  yesterday  extended  to  about  twelve  hundred 
copies;  and  would  have  been  still  greater,  had  we  not  divided  the  plunder, 
in  sonje  measure,  with  the  evening  papers.  Wc  shall  now  give  our  "little 
black  poney"  and  his  twenty-three  compatriots  their  discharge  for  the  pre- 
sent.     We  give  up  the  Postmaster  General  as  incurable. 

DAVID  HALE. 

[Doc.  No.  122.] 

Capitol,  December  S,  1S34, 

Abraham  C.  Schenck,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to 
the  respective  interrogatories: 


[  <S6  ]  304 

Question  1.  Were  you  at  any  time  concerned  in  running  an  express  by 
•horses  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York? 

Answer  1.  Yes,  I  was  often  so  ennploycd;  but  particularly  during  the 
winter  of  1S33,  I  was  concerned  in  carryinji;  an  express  mail  for  the  Journal' 
of  Commerce  from  Port  Deposite  to  New  York. 

Question  2.  How  many  miles  did  you  carry  the  express  mail,  and  what 
distance  is  it  from  Port  Deposite  to  New  York? 

Answer  2.  I  carried  from  Philadelphia  eastward  and  to  Philadelphia 
from  the  southward.  I  could  not  tell  the  particular  distance,  because  some- 
times my  horses  ran  farther  than  at  otiiers.  I  endeavored  every  dny  to  keep 
an  accurate  account  of  their  running.  The  agent  also  kept  his  account, 
and  we  settled  by  comparing  our  two  estimates. 

We  began  to  run  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  and  so  continued  for 
about  two  weeks;  and  then  we  ran  from  Port  Deposite  for  about  the  same 
time,  perhaps  longer. 

We  usually  started  from  Philadelphia  after  the  arrival  of  the  Southern 
mail,  which  was  from  10  A.  M.  lo  2  P.  M.,  and  we  had  to  be  in  New  York 
in  time  to  put  the  news  to  press.  We,  therefore,  ran  according  to  the  short- 
ness of  our  time,  say  from  eight  to  twelve  hours. 

During  the  time  we  ran  from  Philadelphia,  the  Post  Office  Department 
liad  no  express.  When  they  put  on  their  express  we  extended  ours  to  Port 
Deposite. 

I  often  ran  with  the  express  of  the  Government,  and  beat  them;  some- 
times they  beat  us. 

We  used  on  an  average  from  S  to  IS  horses  per  day. 

1  never  made  an  estimate  for  carrying  the  express  as  carried  by  Mr. 
Reeside,  on  horses.  Mr.  Bales,  the  post  office  agent,  requested  me  to 
make  him  proposals  for  carrying  it  in  two  horse  wagons.  I  did  so,  and  he 
said  it  was  too  much;  so  I  did  nothing  more,  and  he  told  Reeside  to  go 
on,  and  he  would  be  compensated  for  his  services  while  we  ran.  I  should 
not  like  to  have  run  as  Reeside  did  for  less  than  two  dollars  per  mile,  going 
and  coming,  or  four  dollars  for  each  mile  of  the  ninety- three,  or  whatever 
is  allowed  as  the  distance  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York. 

Two  riders  and  two  horses  going  each  way  at  the  same  time  would  have 
cost  double,  or  eight  dollars  the  strait  mile. 

After  we  left  off,  Reeside's  service  was  not  so  severe;  he  had  more  time. 

I  cannot  tell  the  exact  amount  I  received  for  my  services  in  carrying  the 
express  for  the  Journal  of  Commerce. 

When  we  run  our  horses  on  fast  expresses,  and  the  person  running  finds 
his  own  riders  and  pays  all  expenses,  we  charge  a  dollar  per  mile  for  the 
use  of  our  horses  and  pay  none  of  the  expenses.  If  we  find  riders  and 
defray  expenses,  such  as  tolls,  subsistence  of  riders  and  horses,  we  charge 
two  dollars. 

Question  3.  How  many  horses  did  it  take,  or  would  it  take,  for  Mr.  Ree- 
side to  have  run  as  he  did  while  you  ran  for  the  Journal  of  Commerce, 
from  Philadelphia  to  New  York? 

Answer  3.  I  should  suppose  it  would  have  taken  seventy  horses,  in  ac- 
tual service. 

Question  4.   How  far  would  a  set  of  horses  run? 

Answer  4.  On  an  average,  five  miles;  if  they  went  farther  there  was  dan- 
o-er  of  injuring  the  horses. 

Question  5.  Would  those  horses  which  ran  one  way  five  miles,  or  any 
of  them,  be  able  to  return  over  the  same  ground  the  same  day? 


305  [$6] 

Answer  5.  Some  would  and  some  would  not.  The  best  horses  would, 
the  others  would  not.  At  the  end  near  New  York  some  of  the  horses 
might  run  back;  at  the  other  end  they  could  not  well  do  it,  as  the  time  of 
rest  would  be  too  short. 

Question  6.  In  running  that  route  as  Mr.  Reeside  ran  it  for  thirty-eight 
days,  what  portion  of  that  stock,  with  ordinary  care,  would  be  spoiled  or 
sunk? 

Answer  6.  I  conceive  that  one  half  would  have  been  sunk  if  we  had 
continued  the  whole  time  he  ran  as  we  began  to  run.  After^-e  quit  run- 
ning he  had  more  time.  I  should  suppose  at  the  last  he  otigtit  not  to  in- 
jure the  stock  much,  but  at  last  what  stock  I  did  see  was  one  half  sunk. 

Question  7.  While  you  ran  did  you  keep  up  the  same  speed  with  Ree- 
side, or  did  he  outrun  you? 

Answer  7.  We  were  at  his  speed  at  all  times  when  we  came  alongside 
of  him. 

Question  8.  How  did  your  stock  fare? 

Answer  S.  We  did  not  hurt  ours  much;  we  ran  but  about  two  weeks,  or 
a  little  over.  We  lamed  some  that  never  recovered.  We  must  have  sunk 
a  good  deal  on  ours  if  we  had  sold  them,  but  we  kept  them  till  spring,  and 
then  sold  out.     We  had  so  many  horses  that  we  could  change  at  any  time. 

Question  9.   How  many  had  you? 

Answer  9.  We  had  about  forty  horses,  eight  in  actual  employment  to 
do  the  running  every  day. 

Question  10.  If  eight  were  necessary  to  do  your  running,  how  many 
Would  it  take  to  do  Reeside's,  inasmuch  as  the  speed  was  the  same? 

Answer  10.  I  should  think  sixteen  v/ould  do  his,  as  we  ran  longer  dis- 
tances than  he  did. 

We  ran  five  miles  with  each  horse.  Mr.  Reeside  ran  four  horses  to  my 
one;  the  distance  was  ninety-six  miles  to  New  York. 

My  eight  horses  ran  from  Port  Deposite  bridge  to  Philadelphia;  called 
60  miles.  Mr.  Hale  had  some  there,  say  two  or  three,  running  with  my 
horses. 

Question  11.   What  would  be  the  average  cost  of  those  horses? 

Answer  11.  The  average  cost  of  my  horses  would  be  seventy-five  to 
eighty  dollars.  Reeside's  were  better  a  good  deal  than  mine.  I  could  not 
tell  their  average  cost.     I  think  those  I  saw  were  worth  about  S150. 

Question  12.  If  his  horses  were  finer  than  yours,  would  they  not  do 
more  work  than  3/ours,  and,  therefore,  take  a  less  average  number? 

Answer  12.  Not  so  much  work  as  ours.  It  i.=!  not  the  value  of  the  horse 
which  would  do  the  work.  It  is  being  accustomed  to  hard  work  and  hard 
use.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  his  could  not  do  as  much  as  mine;  but  a  horse 
worth  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  not  accustomed  to  the  service,  could 
not  do  it  as  well  as  one  of  less  value  which  vva^  used  to  it.  I  thought 
Reeside's  horses  had  harder  work  than  mine,  from  carrying  weight;  the 
portmanteaus  were  of  some  size.     We  carried  but  two  or  three  papers. 

Question  13.  Give  as  near  as  you  can  the  average  value  of  Reeside's 
horses? 

Answer  13.  I  could  not  say.  My  horses  were  fit  for  that  service,  and 
were  worth,  averaging  eighty  to  eighty-five  dollars,  at  that  season  of  the 
year.     In  the  spring  they  would  have  averaged  more. 

Question  14,   What  was  the  average  cost  of  keeping  horses  on  the  road? 
Answer  14.  Between  Philadelphia  and  New  York  the  average  costs  for 
39 


[  8e  "I  306 

keeping  horses  is  three  dollars  per  week  for  twelve  quarts  per  day;  with 
extra  feed  it  might  come  to  four  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents. 

Question  15,   How  many  boys  were  necessary  for  Reeside's  horses? 

Answer  15.  Generally  thc}^  rode  twenty  miles,  and  by  the  month.  I 
paid  for  boys  from  seven  to  ten  dollars;  they  were  stable  boys,  not  hired  to 
ride;  but  when  I  wanted  them  they  did  ride. 

Question  16.  How  many  agents  had  Reeside  on  that  road,  and  who  were 
they? 

Answer  16.  I  do  not  know.  Ewings  was  frequently,  I  think,  on  the 
road  when  he  was  in  Reeside's  employment.     Mr.  Weart  can  tell. 

Question  17.    Howlong  had  you  been  running  before  Reeside  commenced? 

Answer  17.     Perhaps  about  two  weeks. 

Question  18.     How  much  did  you  receive  per  day  for  your  services? 

Answer  18.  Before  Reeside  commenced  we  charged  the  Journal  of  Com- 
merce one  dollar  a  mile  for  carrying  the  express.  After  Reeside  com- 
menced we  extended  our  line  to  Port  Deposite.  I  suppose  we  must  have 
charged  him  for  one  horse  work  about  one  dollar  per  mile.  At  the  last 
we  flung  off  a  good  deal,  as  it  had  been  my  proposal  to  start  at  Port  Depo- 
site, and  beat  the  post  office  express. 

Question  19.  On  settlement,  what  did  you  receive  per  day,  or  per  mile;  or 
how  much  did  you  receive  in  the  aggregate? 

Answer  19.  I  cannot  tell.  Previous  to  settlement,  Mr.  Hale  wrote  me  he 
was  going  to  draw  off  the  express.  It  was  an  expensive  job,  and  his  agent 
made  a  settlement  with  me  for  from  one  to  two  hundred  dollars  balance. 

Question  20.     Did  it  exceed  or  fall  short  of  one  hundred  dollars  per  day? 

Answer  20.     It  fell  short. 

Question  21.     Did  it  exceed  or  fall  short  of  eighty  dollars  per  day? 

Answer  21.     It  fell  short. 

Question  22.     Did  it  exceed  or  fall  short  of  fifty  dollars  per  day? 

Answer  22.  It  fell  short.  The  whole  payment  may  have  been  from  three 
to  four  hundred  dollars. 

Question  23.  How  many  miles  did  you  carry  it,  and  for  what  length  of 
time? 

Answer  23.  Perhaps  my  horses  ran  from  thirty  to  fifty  miles  per  day; 
averaging  forty  miles,  about;  and  the  whole  time  we  ran  was  about  two 
weeks — a  little  over  or  a  little  under.  We  furnished  Mr.  Hale,  before 
Reeside  began,  in  addition  to  these  two  weeks  named,  with  horses,  from 
time  to  tjme,  as  he  wanted  them,  for  about  two  weeks.  The  sum  above 
named  was  in  full  for  all  services  rendered  to  Mr.  Hale. 

Question  24.  With  whom  did  you  settle  your  transactions  with  Mr.  Hale 
for  running  the  express?     Name  the  individual  if  you  know  it. 

Answer  24.     Mr.  Hale's  agent,  who  was  on  the  line  at  the  time. 

Question  25.     What  was  his  name? 

Answer  25.  It  was,  I  think,  Benthuysen,  or  something  like  that.  His 
Christian  name  1  do  not  recollect. 

Question  26.  Were  others  associated  with  the  Journal  of  Commerce  in 
running  the  express  which  you  carried? 

Answer  26.  Mr.  Hale,  editor  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce,  was  the  only 
man  I  knew  in  the  business. 

Question  27.     What  was  the  object  in  having  that  express  mail? 

Answer  27.    It  was  to  get  the  new6p?per9  so  early  in  the  evening  as  to  put 


307  [  S6  ] 

the  news  to  press  that  night,  as  the  mail  did  not  bring  them  till  next  morn- 
ing— to  brin^ intelligence  earlier  than  the  mail,  as  I  was  told  by  Mr.  Hale. 

Question  38.      Did  that  express  run  both  ways,  or  only  to  New  York? 

Answer  28.     It  was  a  single  express  to  New  York;  none  returned. 

Question  29.  Did  you  charge  a  full  price  to  the  Journal  of  Commerce 
for  running  that  express? 

Answer  29.  No,  I  do  not  think  I  charged  more  than  one-half  for  my  ser- 
vices, after  Reeside  began.  I  was  a  good  deal  interested,  and  did  not  charge 
Mr.  Hale  as  much  as  I  would  have  charged  another  person. 

AB'M.  C.  SCHANCK. 


[Doc.  No.  123.] 

Capitol,  December  8,  1834. 
John  A.  Weart,  being  duly  sworn,    gave  the  following   answers   to   the 
respective  interrogatories,  to  wit: 

Question  1.  Were  you  concerned,  at  any  time  during  the  winter  and 
spring  of  1833,  in  carrying  the  express  mail,  sent  by  the  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment, between  Philadelphia  and  New  York?  If  so,  state  when,  and  from 
what  places. 

Answer  1.  I  was.  Mr.  Hutchinson  and  myself  furnished  horses  for 
this  express,  and  also  for  a  part  of  the  Journal  of  Commerce;  each  found 
their  own  riders  They  paid  us  by  the  mile,  and  ran  our  horses  on  an 
average  five  miles,  and  paid  one  dollar  per  mile.  About  the  time  the  Jour- 
nal of  Commerce  express  ceased,  Mr.  Reeside's  agent  came  along  and  made 
a  contract  with  us  to  carry  the  express  from  Trenton  to  Brunswick  and 
back,  called  twenty-five  miles.  I  think  we  carried  it  thirty-one  or  tvvo 
days  both  ways,  and  for  that  we  received  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-five 
dollars  and  some  cents.  We  ran  the  four  horses,  tvvo  each  way.  We  had 
about  twenty  horses  generally  in  this  service.  We  lamed  some,  but  killed 
no  horses.  Reeside  injured  a  great  many.  We  would  not  have  carried 
the  whole  distance  for  t.he  same  rate  of  cost.  We  should  have  had  to  buy 
horses,  and  the  risk  in  doing  so  would  have  been  too  great;  and  it  was  a 
season  of  the  year  when  our  own  horses  were  comparatively  idle. 

Question  2.  How  long  did  Mr.  Reeside's  express  and  that  of  the  Jour- 
nal of  Commerce  run  together? 

Answer  2.     I  think  about  six  days. 

Question  3.  In  what  way  were  you  first  employed  by  Reeside,  and  for 
how  long,  before  you  made  a  contract  with  him  to  carry  part  of  the  express? 

Answer  3.  I  think  about  six  or  seven  days,  for  which  he  paid  us  five 
dollars  for  each  horse,  and  paid  his  own  expenses,  and,  I  think,  rode  them 
five  miles  per  day. 

Question  4.  How  long  did  you  carry  the  express  under  contract;  how 
far;  did  you  find  your  own  riders,  and  pay  all  the  expenses  for  the  distance 
that  you  carried  it? 

Answer  4.  I  carried  express  from  Trenton  to  New  Brunswick,  two 
horses  each  way,  twenty-six  miles,  1  think  for  thirty-two  days.  We  found 
our  riders  and  paid  all  expenses,  for  which  I  received  cigiiteen  hundred  and 
eighty-five  dollars  seventy-one  cents. 

Question  5.  Have  you  here  with  you  a  copy  of  your  account  witli  Mr. 
Reeside  as  entered  in  your  books?     If  so,  please  produce  it. 

Answer  5.  I  have  no  copy,  but  I  can  furnish  one  should  the  mmmittee 
wish  it. 


[  86  ]  308 

Question  6,     After  your  contract  with  Reeslde  commenced,  did  tlie  ex- 
press of  the  Journal  of  Commerce  run,  and  how  long?  • 
Answer  6      I  am  not  able  to  say. 

JOHN  A.   WEART. 

Copy  of  an  account  against  Col.  James  Beeside. 

Col,  James  Reeside, 
1S33.  To  Hutchinson  &  Weart,  Dr. 

January  31,  To  one  horse  on  express,  _  .  - 

February  1,  "  two  horses         do  .  _  - 

''         2,  "  two  horses         do  -  -  - 

"         3,  "  two  horses         do  _  _  - 

*'         3,  "  horse  atid  gig,  eastward,  making  arrangements  for 
regular  express,  ... 

March  7,       ' '  two  horses  on  express,  -  .  . 

*'  7,  *'  running  express  one  month  and  four  days,  from 
February  4  to  this  date,  inclusive,  between 
Trenton  and  New  Brunswick,         -  -         1,S85  71 


$n 

00 

10 

00 

10 

00 

10 

00 

5 

00 

5 

00 

,930  71 


The  above  is  a  true  copy  from  our  books,  so  far  as  relates  to  expresses, 
and  has  been  paid  to  us  by  Col.  Reeside. 

HUTCHINSON  &  WEART. 
By  D.  Hutchinson. 


[Doc.   No.    124.] 

GEORGE  TABOR. 

Question  I.  What  number  of  mails  are  carried  between  this  city  and 
New  York,  and  what  are  the  respective  hours  of  their  arrival  and  de- 
parture? 

Answer  1.  We  consider  that  there  are  four  mails  a  day  between  Phila- 
delphia and  New  York.  At  six  in  the  morning  we  send  "  tbe  Way  mail" 
and  "  New  York  city  mail"  together;  they  go  in  the  steamboat  together  as 
far  as  Bristol.  The  way  mail  is  then  taken  by  land  through  Trenton,  Prince- 
ton, New  Brunswick,  Rahway,  Newark,  and  Jersey  City,  to  New  York. 
The  bags  containing  '•  the  New  York  city  mail"  go  by  the  steamboat  and 
railroad  line  when  the  steamboats  run.  When  the  steamboats  do  not  run, 
the  New  York  city  mail  and  the  way  mail  arrive,  depart  together,  and  go 
the  same  road.  ^ 

These  mails  leave  at  6  o'clock  A.  M.  The  way  mail  is  always  allowed, 
I  think,  33  hours  to  go  through;  and  when  the  steamboats  do  not  run,  the 
"  New  York  city  mail"  takes  the  same  time.  The  tliird  mail  leaves  at 
about  10  o'clock  A.  M.;  by  that  we  send  bags,  containing  newspapers, 
documents,  and  all  heavy  matter  we  may  have  in  the  office  at  that  time — ;, 
not  letters.  It  goes,  when  the  boats  run,  by  them;  when  they  do  not,  it  is. 
taken  by  the  other  lines. 

We  put  on  the  fast  line,  when  it  is  starting,  all  that  can  be  carried  by  it; 
preferring  all  daily  papei's,  and  leaving  documents,  weekly  papers,  &c., 
which  go  by  the  way  line.  The  10  o'clock  mail  ceases  when  the  boats  do 
not  run;  so  that,  when  the  boats  do  not  run,  there  are  but  two  lines. 


309  [   86  ] 

The  fourth  is  the  great  northern  mail;  it  closes  at  our  office  at  3  P.  M., 
and  the  time  of  its  departure  from  the  office  depends  entirely  upon  the  Bal- 
timore boat?;  it  would  average  5  o'clock.  This  is  one  of  the  two  lines 
which  run  when  steamboat  navigation  ceases. 

This  has  been  the  usual  mode  since  I  came  into  the  office.  At  present 
there  is  a  change,  say  about  three  weeks  since.  There  is  now  a  second 
daily  mail,  which  runs  with  the  fast  New  York  line  to  Bordentown,  and 
from  there  is  sent  by  stages  to  Trenton.  I  do  not  consider  it  as  any  dif- 
ferent arrangement,  it  is  only  dividing  the  matter;  it,  however,  gives 
Trenton  the  accommodation  of  a  second  daily  mail  instead  of  but  one. 

Question  2.  What  number  of  mails  run  between  this  city  and  Balti- 
more, and  what  are  the  hours  of  their  arrival  and  departure? 

Answer  2.  There  is  one  mail  from  this  to  Baltimore,  called  the  "  Great 
Southern  Mail,"  leaves  our  office  at  6  A.  M.,  and  is  carried  by  the  steam- 
boat. 

There  is  also  a  way  mail,  known  in  the  office  by  the  name  of  the  ''New 
London  Cross  Roads  Mail,"  leaves  the  offxce  at  7  o'clock,  and  is  allowed 
thirty-six  hours. 

Question  3.      What  mails  are  carried  between  this  and  Pittsburg? 

Answer  3.  There  is  one  daily  mail,  called  the  "  Pittsburg  Mail;"  it 
leaves  the  office  at  S  o'clock  A.  M.,  and  arrived  formerly  about  10  in  the 
morning;  now,  since  the  railroad  to  Columbia,  it  arrives  from  7  to  8  A.  M. 

The  above  has  been  the  case  since  I  have  been  in  the  office,  which  is 
about  eighteen  months. 

Question  4.  When  a  part  of  the  lines  between  this  and  New  York  cease 
to  run,  and  the  matter  is  thrown  upon  the  other  lines  which  do  run,  does  it 
require  these  lines  then  running  to  have  additional  coaches  on  the  road? 

Answer  4.     I  cannot  answer  this  question. 

Question  5.  Is  it  for  the  convenience  of  the  contractor  to  have  the  mails 
thus  divided? 

Answer  5.  I  think  it  is,  I  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  these  lines 
continuing  or  ceasing  after  the  mails  leave  the  office.  I  refer  to  the  10 
o'clock  line  and  the  New  York  city  mail;  but  when  the  steamboats  do  not 
run,  no  mails  are  made  up  for  them,  and  I  have  no  knowledge  of  their 
running.  GEORGE  TABOR. 


[Doc.  No.  125.] 

(Copy.)  Post  Office  DKr.VRTMENT, 

Mai/  21,  1828. 
Sir:  You  will  deliver  the  mail  at42  A.  M.,  at  Philadelphia,  witiiout  any 
change  in  your  departure  from  New  York,  as  per  your  letter  of  the  16th 
instant;  as  you  stated  you  will  do  so  on  the  19th,  the  department  must  go 
on  with  the  change.  By  my  other  letter  you  were  directed  to  si:spend  the 
change,  if  not  made;  but  we  infer  and  am  sure,  that  it  was  begun  on  the 
19th,  as  you  proposed,  and  must  now  go  on.  The  change  from  Philadel- 
phia Vv^ill  not  take  place  until  next  Monday  morning.  The  Postmaster 
General  says  that  your  extra  allowance  will  be  very  limited. 

Very  respectfully. 

Your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  P.  B. 

James  Reeside,  Esq.,  Brisfo/,  Pa. 


[  86  ]  310 

D».  [Doc.  No.  126. J  James  Reeside^  contractor,  in  account 


»iM 

1825. 

April   1 

To  draft  on  representatives  of  S.  Smith, 

late  postmaster        _            .             _ 

^271   98 

«    21 

Cash               -             -      '       - 

506  67 

$11S  65 

July     1 

Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in  second 

quarter,  1825 

293  60 

Aug.    9 

Cash               -             -            .             - 

406  66 

Sept.  21 

Failure  of  mail          ^- 

20  00 

720  26 

Oct.      1 

Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in  third 

quarter  1825            -             -             . 

148  08 

<'    13 

Cash               -             -            _             . 

50  00 

198  OS 

1S26. 

Jan.      2 

Draft  on  H.  McKinley 

78  60 

n      7 

Cash 

180  00 

a     17 

Cash               -             -             -            - 

650  00 

March  7 

Cash               «... 

97  92 

Balance 

1,006  52 

$2,70«  51 

362  87 

1826. 

April    1 

Drafts  on   sundry  postmasters  in  first 

quarter  1826            .             -             . 

70  17 

««      5 

Cash                .... 

405  00 

<'      S 

Cash 

154  90 

''    26 

Cash               -             .             .             - 

300  00 

930  07 

July      3 

Cash                ...             - 

236   74 

''    11 

Cash                .             .            .             - 

590  00 

826  74 

Oct.       1 

Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in  third 

quarter  1826 

156  49 

"     19 

Cash               .             .             .             - 

710  00 

1827. 

Jan.       2 

Cash                .             .            .            - 

800  00 

Feb.      1 

Cash                .... 

573  50 

March  27 

Cash                .... 

1,127  76 

3,867  75 

$5,487  43 

.~^~^ 

311 


t  86   ] 


tdith  the  Post  Office  Department. 


Cr. 


By  short  payment  on  S.  Smith's  draft 

April  1,  1825 
Penalty  charged  September  21,  1S25, 

remitted.  _  -  . 

Short  payment   on   S.  Smith's  draft, 

July  1,  1825  -  -  - 

Transporting  mail  Hancock  to  Cumber- 
land from  January  1,  1825,  to  date, 
at  $506  67  per  quarter 
Balance 


Sundry  drafts  on  postmasters  of  July 
1,1825,  and  April  1,1826,  returned 

Over  crediting  Joseph  Boyd  his  part 
of  additional  allowance  from  April 
1  to  July  1,1826,  at  S133  OS  instead 
of  $122  08;  difference 


Hancock  to  Cumberland,  his  portion 
of  $825  per  quarter  for  additional 
allowance  from  October  1,  1825,  to 
April  1,  1826,  at  ^318  70,  and  ad- 
ditional from  April  1,  1826  to  date 

Cumberland  to  Westernport  and  Bed- 
ford from  January  1, 1826  at  $72  25 
Balance 


gl71   98 

20  00 

121   98 


2,026  68 
362  87 


J,  703  51 


$148  87 


11  00 


3,385  59 

199  00 
1,742  97 


$5,487  43 


[   S6   ] 
Dr. 


312 


James  JReeside's  account 


1827. 
April    2 


1827. 


July 


Sept.  21 


1827. 

Oct.      1 

<'       8 

"    24 

Nov.  16 


To  Balance 

Cash 


To  Balance    -  -  -  - 

Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in  second 
quarter  1827  ... 

Cash  .  -  .  . 

Cash  -  .  -  - 

Wet  mails  at  Cumberland    19th    and 
26th  August,  1826,  &c. 


$500  00 
1,041   71 


To  Balance     -  -             -             - 

Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in  third 

quarter  1827 

Cash                .  .             -             . 

Cash                 -  .             .             . 

Cash                -  .             .             . 


^800  00 
582  76 
100  00 


Si, 742  97 
800  00 


g2,542   97 


$41   71 
386  06 

1,541   71 
20  00 


1,989  47 


S61   71 
420  00 

1,4S2   76 


$1,964  49 


313 


-Continued. 


[   ^^6   ] 
Cr. 


1827. 
April    1 


June     6 


1827. 


July 


18.37. 


By  transporting  mail,  his  share,  Win- 
chester toBoonsborough,atSl31  25 
per  quarter;  Winchester  to  Hancock, 
at  $4S  75  per  quarter  and  his  share; 
Montgomery  to  Blountsville,  at 
§924  67  per  quarter,  from  January 
1, 1627        -  -  -  . 

Hancock  to  Cumberland  and  additional 
allowance  .  .  _ 

Cumberland  to  Westernport  and  Bed- 
ford, per  quarter      -  - 

Cash  charged  February  1,  1825",  it 
being  paid  on  account  of  Jacob  Sides 
Balance 


Transporting  mail,  his  share,  W^inches- 
tor  to  Boonsboro'igh;  $131  25  per 
quarter;  Winchester  to  Hancock, 
$4S  75,  and  his  share,  Montgomery 
to  Blountsville,  at  ■5S924  67  per 
quarter,  from  April  1,  1827 

Do  Hancock  to  Cumberland  and  ad- 
ditional allowance 

Do  Cumberland  to  Westernport  and 
Bedford,  per  quarter 

Balance 


Transporting  mail,  his  share,  Winches- 
ter to  Boonsborough,  $131  25  per 
quarter;  Winchester  to  Hancock, 
$48  75,  and  his  share,  Montgomery 
to  Blountsville,  atS924  67  per  quar- 
ter, from  Julyl,  1827 

Do  Hancock  tc  Cumberland,  and  ad- 
ditional allowance 

Do  Cumberland  to  Westernport  and 
Bedford,  per  quarter 

Balance  -  -         - 


40 


$1,104 

67 

750 

84 

72 

25 

573 

50 

41 

71 

2,542 

97 

1   1,104 

67 

750 

84 

72 

25 

61 

71 

1,989 

47 



— 

1,104 

67 

750 

84 

72 

25 

36 

71 

1,964 

47 

[86] 


314 


James  Reeaide^s  account 


1828. 
Jan.      1 

«'  11 

Feb.     5 
"      6 


1828. 
March  19 
April    1 


*'    15 
May  29 


To  Balance 

Cash 

Cash 

Cash 

Cash 

Gash 


Balance  -  -  .  . 

Cash  .  -  .  . 

Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in   first 
quarter,  1828 

Cash  .  -  -  . 

Cash  .  -  .  - 

Cash  e.  «.  -  - 

Cash  -  -  -  . 


[,927  76 
110  00 
500  00 
878  57 
267  50 


1,815  42 


312  33 


2,100  00 
750  00 
800  00 
150  00 


S36  71 

■I 


3,683  83 


3,720  54 


1,792  78 


2,127  75 


3,800  00 


7,720  53 


31. I 


I  86] 


-Continued. 


Cr. 


1828. 
Jan.      1 


1828. 
March  31 


April    1 


By  Transporting  nnailj  his  share,  Win- 
chester to  Boonsboro',  Si 31  25  per 
quarter;  Winchester  to  Hancock, 
per  quarter  S48  75;  and  his  share, 
Montgomery  to  Blountsville,  at 
iS924  67  per  quarter,  from  October 
1,  i827        -  -  -  - 

Do  Hancock  to  Cumberland,  and  ad- 
ditional allowance,  per  quarter 

Do     Cumberland  to  Westernport  and 
Bedford,  per  quarter 
Balance 


Transporting  mail.  New  Brunswick  to 
New  York  city,  from  25th  to  31st 
December,  1827,  inclusive,  employ- 
ing five  teams,  at  $7  each  per  day, 
$245;  Philadelphia  to  Frankfort, 
from  19th  to  31st  December,  1827, 
inclusive,  one  team  at  S7  per  day, 
S84;  tolls  paid  from  19th  to  31st 
December,  1827,  Philadelphia  to 
New  Brunswick,  at  $6  67  per  day, 
$40  02;  do.  do.  25th  to  31st 
December,  1827,  inclusive,  Phila- 
delphia to  New  York  city,  at  $11  65 
per  day,  $81  55;  cash  paid  P. 
Whitting  per  bill,  S778;  ten  days' 
and  nights'  services  at  ^5  per  day, 
$50;  expenses  the  same  time  $40; 
hire  of  hacks,  sulkies,  &c,,  &c., 
g60  -  .  -  . 

Do  Cumberland  to  Westernport,  Bed- 
ford to  Cumberland,  Cumberland  to 
Flint's  store  at  ^117  25;  Bedford  to 
Laughlinton,  Hancock  toFrostburg, 
at  Si, 247  07  per  quarter,  from  Jan- 
uary 1  to  date  -  -  - 

Do  His  share,  Winchester  to  Boons- 
borough,  $131  25  per  quarter;  Win- 
chester to  Hancock  at  S48  75  per 
quarter;  his  share,  Montgomery  to 
Blountsville  $924  67 
Balance 


§1,104 

67 

750 

84 

72 

25 

1,792 

78 

3,720 

54 

1,378  57 


1,364  32 


1,104  67 
3,872  97 

7,720  53 


[  8fi  ] 
Dr. 


310 


James  Reeside's  account 


1828. 

July      1 
((     (( 

"      2 

<'      3 
*'   24 


To  Balance  •  - 

Cash                _  .  -  - 

Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in  second 

quarter,  182S 

Cash                 _  -  -  . 

Cash                 -  .  »  - 

Cash                -  »  -  - 


1828. 
Oct,      I 


16 
20 


1829. 


Jan. 


Balance          -             .  -  » 
Draft  on  J.  B.  Mower 

Cash                 -             „  .  ~ 

Cash                .             .  .  - 

B.  Robinson^s  quarter's  pay:  Mont- 
gomery to  Blountsville  to  Septem- 
ber 30,  1828 

Cash                1              .  .  . 

Cash                „             .  -  . 


@250  00 

1,000  00 

64G  09 


4,000  00 
500  00 


583,872  97 
4,700  00 

291   39 


1,896  09 


1,000  00 
800  00 


Balance 
Drafts    on     sundry    postmasters   for 

fourth  quarter,  1S2S 
Cash  -  .  .  . 

Cash  -  .  .  - 

Cash  -,*.-, 


3,445  16 
1,000  00 
2,825  00 


10,760  45 


2,255  21 
109  00 


4,500  00 


462   33 


1,800  00 


S,12G   54 


3,307  55 


640  00 


317 


-Continued. 


[    ^C>   ] 
Cr. 


1S2S, 
July      1 


"       2 


182S. 
Oct.      1 


1829, 
Jan.       1 


By  Transporting  mail,  Cumberland  to 
Westernport,  Bedford    to  Cumber- 

'  land,  Cumberland  to  Flint's  Store 
SI  17  25  per  quarter;  Bedford  to 
Laughlintown,&  Hnncock  to  Frost- 
burgh,  at  $1,247  07  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city 
from  January  1,  152S,  at  $2,725  peV 
quarter        .  .  _  . 

Additional  allowance  from  March  25, 
1S28,  at  $625  per  quarter     - 

His  share,  Winchester  to  Boonsboro', 
$131  25  per  quarter;  Winchester  to 
Hancock  $48  75  per  quarter;  his 
share,  Montgomery  to  Blountsville 
g924   G7      - 

Cash  -  .  .  . 

Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  April  1, 
1828,  returned 

Balance 


Transporting  mail,  Cumberland  to 
Westernport,  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land, Cumberland  to  Flint's  Store, 
Si  17  25  per  quarter;  Bedford  to 
Laughlintown,  Hancock  to  Frost- 
ipurgh,  at  ^1,247  07  per  quarter      - 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city 
and  additional  allowance  per  quarter 

His  share,  Winchester  to  Boonsborough 
•§131  25  per  quarter;  Winchester 
to  Hancock  S48  75  per  quarter;  his 
share,  Montgomery  to  Blountsville 
at  J^924  67  per  quarter 
Balance 


Transporting  mail,  Cumberland  to 
Westernport,  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land, and  thence  to  Flint's  Store, 
§117  25  per  quarter;  Bedford  to 
Laughlintown,  Hancock  to  Frost- 
burgh,  at  $1,247  07  per  quarter      - 


81,364  32 

5,450  00 
48  07 


1,104  67 
288  03 

250   15 
2,255  21 

10,760  45 


1,364  32 
3,350  00 


1,104  67 
3,307  55 

9,126  54 


1,364   32 


[S6  ] 

i)R. 


318 


James  lieestde's  accovnt 


1829, 
Jan.  10 
March  4 
«'  5 
«  10 
*<    25 


1S29. 
April    1 


3 

6 

IS 


To  Cash 

Cash 

Cash  paid  B.  Robinson,  &e. 

Cash 

Cash 


Balance 
Drafts  on 
quarter, 
Cash 
Cash 
Cash 
Cash 


sundry  postmasters  in  first 
1829 


UjOOO  00 

800  00 

462  63 

1,000  00 

1,070  00 


1,400  00 

1,030  00 

1,000  00 

800  00 


Si  1,603  49 


15,550  04 


6,619   94 
367  50 

4,230  00 


11,217  44 


319 


-Continued. 


[86  ] 
C». 


1829. 
Jan.      1 


March  13 


1S29. 
April    1 


By  Transporting  mail,  Philadelphia  to 
New  York  city,  and  additional  al- 
lowance, per  quarter 

Do  New  York  to  Milford  from  Jan. 
1,  1828,  at  $175  per  quarter 

Daily  mail  to  Paterson  from  do.  at 
Sl2  50  per  quarter 

His  share,  Winchester  to  Boonsboro', 

S131  25   per  quarter;    Winchester 

to  Hancock  S48  75  per  quarter;  his 

'  share,  Montgomery  to  Blountsville, 

atg924  67  per  quarter 

An  additional  allowance  for  expediting 
mail  between  New  York  and  Phila- 
delphia 2i  hours,  by  direction  of  the 
Postmaster  General,  per  letter  May 
21,1828,  for  five  months  and  twenty 
days  -  -  - 

Balance 


Transporting  mail,  Winchester  to  Han- 
cock,  at  848  75  per  quarter;  his  part 
Winchester  to  Boonsboro',  $131  25 
and  Montgomery  to  Blountsville, 
at  $462  34  per  quarter 

Do  Cumberland  to  Westernport, 
Bedford  to  Cumberland,  Cumber- 
land to  Flint's  Store,  $117  25;  Bed- 
ford to  Laughlintown,  Hancock  to 
Frostburg,  at  gl,247  07  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
and  additional  allowance,  perquarter 

Do  New  York  city  to  Milford,  and  a 
daily  mail   to  Paterson,  per  quarter 

Short  credit,  July  1 ,  1828,  having  been 
credited  additional  allowance,  Phila- 
delphia to  New  York  city,  from 
March  25,  1828,  at  $48  07,  instead 
of  8673  07  per  quarter,  difference 
Balance 


g3,350  00 

700  00 

'50  00 

1,104  67 


2,361    11 
6,619  94 

15,550  04 


642  34 

1,364  32 

3,350  00 

187  50 


625  00 
5,048  28 


11,217  44 


C  86   ] 
Dr. 


320 


James  Reeside's  account 


t.\..' 


1829. 
July      1 

<(     <( 
«<     10 


To  Balance     -  -  -  " 

Drafts   on   sundry   postmasters  in  Ihe 

second  quarter  1829 
Cash  .  _  -  - 

Cash  .  -  .  - 


$6,000  00 
200  00 


1829. 
Oct.   .  1  I 

"  3 
«  9 
u    17 


Balance  -  °  °   ■     xu' 

Drafts  on   sundry  postmasters  in  the 

third  quarter,  1829 
Cash  .  -  -  - 

Cash  ,  .  -  - 

Cash  -  -  =  - 


1,700  00 
1,630  70 
1,500  00 


1830. 


Jan. 


To  Balance 

Do    Draft  on  Jane  WiUon 


$5M8  28 
446  75 

6,200  00 


11,695  03 


6,041   87 


419  44 


4,830   70 


11,292  01 


$747  85 
'   I    200  00 


321 


Continued. 


[86  ] 


1829. 
July      1 


Sept.  30 


1829. 
Oct.      1 


1830. 
Jan.      I 


By  Transporting  mail,  Cumberland  to 
Western  Port;  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land; Cumberland  to  Flint's  store, 
gll7  25;  Bedford  to  Laughlintown; 
and  Hancock  to  Frostburg;  at  ^1,247 
07  per  quarter        .  -  , 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
and  additional  allowance,  per  quar- 
ter .  -  -  . 

Do  New  York  city  to  Milford;  and 
a  daily  mail  to  Patterson;  per  quarter 

Do  Winchester  to  Hancock,  $48  75 
per  quarter;  his  part  Winchester  to 
Boonsboro'  ^131  50;  his  part  Mont- 
gomery to  Blountsville,  $462  34 
per  quarter  .  _  _ 

J.  B.  Mower's  draft,  October  1,  1828, 
returned     -  -  .  - 

Balance 


Expediting  mail,  Philadelphia  to  New 
York  city,  from  Jan.  1  to  July  1, 
1829  .  .  .  . 

Do  Cumberland  to  Western  Port; 
Bedford  to  Cumberland,  and  Flint's 
store  SlI7  25;  Bedford  to  Laugh- 
lintown, and  Hancock  to  Frostburg, 
Sl,247  07  .  -  . 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail  -  -  -  . 

Do  New  York  to  Milford,  and  a  daily 
mail  to  Patterson;  per  quarter 

Do     Winchester  to  Hancock  §48  75; 

his  part  Winchester  to  Boonsboro' 

$131  25;  his  part  Montgomery  to 

Blountsville,  at  $462  34  per  quarter 

Balance 


Transporting    mail,    Cumberland    to 
Western  Port;  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
41 


^1,364  32 

3,350  00 
187  50 


642  34 

109  00 
6,041  87 


gll,695  03 


3,000 

00 

1,364 

32 

5,350  00 

187 

50 

642 

34 

747 

85 

gll,292  01 

. 

Ir 

i  S6  J 

Da. 


322 


James  Reeside's  account- 


To     Cash 
Do       do 
Do      do 


S2,134  04 
1,500  00 
3,000  00 


>,634  04 


To  Balance    - 

Do     Draft  on  Phineas  Oeden 

Do     Cash       .  .  , 

Do       do         - 

Do      do         - 

Do       do         - 


To  balance     -  ^  -  - 

Do     Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters,  in 

second  quarter,  1830 
Do     Cash       -  -  «  . 

Do      do         > 
Do       do        - 


656  00 

900  00 

3,559  84 

2,000  00 


$7,581  89 


2,500  00 
1,500  00 
3,145  00 


1,037  73 
28  67 


6,115  84 


$7,182  24 


528  67 
768  36 

7,145  00 


^8,443  03 


Continued. 


323 


C   86    1 
Cr. 


1830. 


Jan.     1 


1S30. 
April    1 


June     8 


1830. 

July      ] 


land,  and  Flint's  Store,  $117  25; 
Bedford  to  Laughlintown,  and  Han- 
cock to  Frostburg,  §1,247  07  per 
quarter        _  _  ..  - 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail  ,  -  -  . 

Do  New  York  to  Milford,  and  a 
daily  mail  to  Patterson;  per  quarter 

Do     Winchester  to  Hancock,  $48  75; 

his  part,   Winchester  to  Boonsboro, 

Si 31  25;  his  part,  Montgomery  to 

Blountsville,  $462  34         -       '     - 

Balance 


Do  Transporting  mail,  Cumberland 
to  Western  Port;  Bedford  to  Cum- 
berland ;  Cumberland  to  Flint's  store, 
1^117  25;  Bedford  to  Laughlintown; 
and  Hancock  to  Frostburg;  at 
gl,247  07  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail;  per  quarter    -  -  - 

Do  New  York  to  Milford;  and  a  daily 
mail  to  Paterson;  per  quarter 

Do  Winchester  to  Hancock,  S4S  75; 
his  part,  Winchester  to  Boonsboro', 
Si 31  25;  his  part,  Montgomery  to 
Blountsville,  at  §462  34  per  quarter 

J.  Whitehead's  draft;  July  1,  1829; 
returned  unpaid       -  -  - 

Balance 


Transporting  mail,  Winchester  to 
Hancock;  ^48  75  per  quarter;  his 
part,  Winchester  to  Boonsboro'; 
4^131  25;  his  part,  Montgomery  to 
Blountsville;  at  $462  34  per  quarter 

Do  Cumberland  to  Western  Port; 
Bedford  to  Cumberland;  atid  thence 
to  Flint's  store;  jgll7  25  per  quarter; 
Bedford  to  Laughlintown;  and 
Hancock  to  Frostburg;  at  jRl, 247  07 
per  quarter 


gl,364  32 

4,350  00 
187   50 


642    34 
1,037  73 

7,581   89 


1,364  33 

4,350  00 
187  50 

642   34 

109  41 

528  67 

7,182  24 


642   34 


1.364   32 


[86  ] 

Db. 


324 


James  Reeside's  account — 


1830. 
Oct.      1 


13 
20 


To  amount  brought  forward   • 


To  Balance    -  -  -  - 

Do    Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in 

third  quarter  1880 
Do    Cash       -  .  -  - 

Do      do         " 


S8,442  03 


8,442  03 


^5,000  00 
2,281  29 


437  87 
1,022  00 

7,281  29 


8,741   16 


625 


Continued. 


[86   ] 
Cr. 


1830. 
July    1 


22 


1830. 
Oct.      1 


Dec.    31 


By  transporting  mail  Philadel{^ia  to 
New  York  city;  additional  allowance 
and  epediting;  mail  per  quarter 

Do  New  York  city  to  Milford;  and 
a  daily  mail  to  Paterson ;  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Pottsville;  from 
April  1,  1830;  at  $25  per  quarter   - 

Double  guards  for  the  mail;  Philadel- 
phia to  N.  York;  both  ways  through, 
from  December  7,  1829,  to  January 
20,  1830,  inclusive;  forty-five  days; 
at  $60  each  guard,  igl20;  two  extra 
passages,  forty-five  days  each,  ma- 
king ninety  passages,  at  S7  each, 
allowed  half  price,  8315  - 
Balance 


Transporting  mail,  Cumberland  to 
Western  Port;  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land; and  thence  to  Flint's  store, 
8117  25  per  quarter;  Bedford  to 
Laughlintown;  and  Hancock  to 
Frostburg;  at  $1,247  07  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail;  per  quarter     -  -  . 

Do  New  York  city  to  Milford;  and 
a  daily  mail  to  Paterson;  per  quar- 
quarter        -  -  -  - 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Pottsville;  exten- 
sion from  Port  Carbon  to  Mauch 
Chunk;  at  S75   per  quarter 

Do  Winchester  to^  Hancock  S48  75; 
his  part,  Winchester  to  Boonsboro', 
$131  25;  his  part,  Montgomery  to 
JBlountsville,  at  $462  34  per  quarter 

S.  Kollock's  draft,  October  1,  1831, 
returned  unpaid      -  -  - 

Balance 


),350  00 

187  50 

25  00 


435  00 
437  87 

8,442  03 


1,364  32 
5,350  00 
187  50 
175  00 

642  34 

285  86 
736  14 

8,741   16 


fSG  ] 


326 


Dr. 


James  Reeside's  account- 


1831. 

Jan. 

1 

(( 

12 

(( 

13 

Feb. 

18 

n 

23 

March  31 


To  Balance     -  -  -  - 

Do     Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  for 

fourth  quarter  1830 
Do     Cash       .... 
Do       do        - 
Do      do         - 
Do    do  - 

Do     Failure  of  mail  at  Augusta,  Ga., 
March  9,  1831 


1831. 

To  Balance'    - 

April    1 

Do     Draft  on  Jane  Wilson 

"       18 

Do     Cash       - 

<<      25 

Do       do         - 

May  20 

Do     Draft  on  I.  L.  Grant 

"     27 

Do     Cash 

«(        (( 

Do       d©         - 

glOOO  00 

3,000  00 

1,908  02 

40  00 


6,000  00 

4,050  95 

30  00 


30  00 
1,075  00 


JS736  14 
498  47 

5,948  02 
100  00 


7,282   63 


628  4f 
200  00 


10,080  95 

1,105  00 
12,014  42 


327 


t  86  3 


Continued. 


Cr. 


By  Transporting  mail,  Cumberland  to 
Western  Port;  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land; and  thence  to  Flint^s  store, 
Si  17  25  per  quarter;  Bedford  to 
Laughlintown;  and  Hancock  to 
Frostburg,  at  $1,247  07  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail,  per  quarter    -  -  - 

Do  New  York  city  to  Milford,  and 
daily  mail  to  Paterson,  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Pottsville;  exten- 
sion. Port  Carbon  to  Mauch  Chunk  - 

Do  Winchester  to  Hancock  g48  75; 
his  part,  Winchester  to  Boonsboro' 
gl31  25;  his  part,  Montgomery  to 
Blountsville,  at  S462  34  per  quar- 
ter .  _  .  , 

G.  Aulabaugh's  draft,  October  1, 1830, 
returned  unpaid      -  -  _ 

Balance 


Transporting  mail;  Cumberland  to 
Western  port:  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land; and  thence  to  Flint's  store,  at 
$620  83  per  quarter;  Hancock  to 
Frostburg,   at  Si  17  25  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail,  per  quarter     .  -  - 

Do  New  York  city  to  Milford ;  and 
daily  mail  to  Paterson,  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Pottsville;  exten- 
sion. Port  Carbon  to  Mauch  Chunk 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Easton,  S400  per 
quarter;  Chambersburgto  Pittsburg, 
at  $2,500  per  quarter 

Porterage  of  Baltimore  and  New  York 
mail  to  and  from  the  steamboat,  in 
1830,  $75;  use  of  one  extra  team 
three  months  on  New  Haven  line, 
from  February  1  to  May  1,  1831, 
at  S200  per  month,  $600;  eight  ex- 
presses to  connect  New  York  to 
New  Haven  mail,  in  1831  • 


$1,364  32 

4,350  00 
187  50 
100  00 


642  34 

10  00 

628  47 


$7,382  63 


738  OS 


4,350 

00 

187 

50 

100 

00 

2,900 

00 

1,075  00 


C   86] 
Dr. 


328 


James  Reeside's  account — 


1831. 
July     1 
"      18 
"     23 


To  Balance 
Do  Cash 
Do       do 


To  amount  brought  forward 


1831. 
Oct.      1 

<*  18 
Nov.  9 
Dec.  30 

«      31 


Balance 


To  Drafts  on  sundry  postmasters  in 

third  quarter,  1831 
Do    Cash       .  -  .  - 

Do      do         - 
Do      do         - 

Do  Arriving  at  Chambersbnrg,  July 
11,  1831,  without  the  western  mail; 
and  failure  at  Augusta,  Ga.,  Aug.  1, 
1831  ,  „  .  - 


$12,014  42 


^5,000  00 
5,000  00 


10,000  00 
5,196  24 
4,000  00 


S12,014  42 


2,633  84 


10,000  00 
569  08 


gl3,202  92 


919  55 


19,196  24 


300  00 


$20,415  79 


329 


C  86] 


Continued. 


May  20 


1831. 
July     1 


1831. 
Oct.      1 


By  H.  Be  van's  draft,  October  1,  1830, 
returned  unpaid 

Balance 


Transporting  mail,  Augusta  to  Mil- 
Jedgevilie,  from  January  1,  1831,  at 
$1,732  50  per  quarter 

Do  One  third,  Christiansburg  to 
Wythe  court  house;  thence  to 
Blountsville;  from  January  1  to 
April,  1S31 

Do  Cumberland  to  Westernport; 
Bedford  to  Cumberland;  and  thence 
to  Flint's  Store,  at  $117  25  per 
quarter;  Hancock  to  Frostburg,  at 
$620  S3  per  quarter,  to  date 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail,  per  quarter     - 

Do  PhiladelphiatoEaston,and  Potts- 
ville;  extension  from  Port  Carbon  to 
Mauch  Chunk,  at  per  quarter,  to  date 

Do  New  York  to  Milford;  a  daily 
mail  to  Paterson,  per  quarter 

Do  Chambersburg  to  Pittsburg,  at 
per  quarter  -  .  _ 


Balance  -  -         .    - 

Transporting  mail,  Cumberland  to 
Westernport;  Bedford  to  Cum- 
berland; and  thence  to  Flint's  Store, 
$117  25;  Hancock  to  Frostburg,  at 
$620  83  per  quarter 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city, 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail  -  -  .  - 

Do  Cross  mail;  Mount  Pleasant  to 
Stewartsville,  from  January  1, 1831, 
at  $62  50  per  quartei* 


42 


$30  00 
2,633  84 


12,014  42 


$3,465  00 


462  34 


3,927  84 


738  08 


5,350  00 


500 

00 

187 

50 

2,500 

00 

13,202 

92 

569 

08 

738  08 

3,350  00 

187  50 


[  S6  ] 


330 


Dk, 


James  Reeside^s  dccouni — 


To  amount  brought  forward 


1832. 
Dec.   31 
Jan.  /1 3 

«       18 
Feb.     3 

it         4 

♦«         6 


To  balance 

Do" 

Cash 

Do 

do 

Do 

do 

Do 

do 

Do 

do 

S5.000  00 
3,000  00 

566  66 
2,920  00 

600  00 


S20,415  79 


20,415  79 


7,751   13 


12,086  &6 


$19,837  79 


331 


[86] 


Continued. 


Cr. 


1831 

L. 

Oct. 

1. 

iC 

ti 

<l 

(( 

<( 

i( 

<< 

a 

Nov. 

2 

1832. 

Jan. 

1 

<( 

a 

Feb. 


By  Transporting  mail,  Philadelphia  to 
Easton  and  Pottsville;  extension, 
Port  Carbon  to  Mauch  Chunk,  at  per 
quarter,  from  July  I,  to  date 

Do  New  York  to  Milford;  a  daily 
mail  to  Paterson,  per  quarter 

Do  Chambersburg  to  Pittsburg;  per 
quarter        -  .  -  - 

Do  Bedford  to  Washington;  from 
July  1 ,  to  date,    per  quarter 

Do  Augusta  to  Milledgeville;  at  per 
quarter        _  -  -  - 

Improperly  crediting  L.  W.  Stockton; 
for  carrying  mail,  Bedford  to  Wash- 
ington; from  April  1,  to  July  1831, 
the  same  having  been  transferred  to 
Mr.  J.  Reeside       -  -  - 

Balance 


Transporting  mail,  Cumberland  to 
Westernport;  Bedford  to  Cumber- 
land; and  thence  to  Flint's  Store 
$117  25  per  quarter;  Hancock  to 
Frostburg,  at  ^620  83  per  quarter, 
to  date         -  -  -  - 

Do  Philadelphia  to  New  York  city; 
additional  allowance  and  expediting 
mail  _  _  .  _ 

Do  Cross  mail,  Mount  Pleasant  to 
Stewartsville,  per  quarter    - 

Do  Philadelphia  to  Easton  and  Potts- 
ville; extension  Port  Carbon  to 
Mauch  Chunk          -  .  . 

Do  New  York  to  Milford;  a  daily 
mail  to  Paterson      -  -  - 

Do  Chambersburg  to  Pittsburg;  per 
quarter        -  -  -  - 

Do  Bedford  to  Washington;  per 
quarter        _  -  -  - 

Do  Augusta  to  IVKlledgeville;  per 
quarter        -  -  -  - 

Lindsay  and  Shaffer,  for  carrying  mail 
from  July  1,  1S31;  amount  due  them 
transferred  to  Mr.  J.  Reeside 


S500  00 
187  50 

2,500  00 
450  00 

1,732  50 


450  00 
7,751   13 


J20,415  79 


f 


738  08 


4,350  00 

62 

50 

500 

00 

187 

50 

2,500 

00 

450 

00 

1,732 

50 

300  00 


[  86  ] 


332 


Dr. 


James  Reeside's  account — 


Amount  brought  forward 


S19,S37  79 


Balance  to  April  1,  1832 


«19,837  79 


2,097  21 


333 


[86] 


Continued. 


Cr. 


1832. 
March  31 


By  extra  expense  incurred  in  keeping  2 
extra  teams  between  New  York  and 
Piiiladelphia,  in  consequence  of  fre- 
quent detention  at  New  York,  from 
one  to  two  hours,  awaiting  the  dis- 
tribution of  foreign  mails,  they  fre- 
quently arriving  just  before  the  de- 
parture of  the  stage,  for  three  years, 
from  Jan.  1,  1S29,  to  December  31, 
1831  -  -  -  .     $4,500  00 

Do  Carrying  from  Philadelphia  to  N. 
York  city  all  the  large  mail  bags  in- 
tended for  use  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  averaging  500  pounds  per 
week  for  same  period  -  -         1,560  00 

David  Dorrance's  draft,  Jan.  1,  1831, 

in  his  favor  ...  s60  00 

Balance        -        2,097  21 


$6,920  00 


19,837  79 


86  ] 


334 

[Doc.  No.  127.] 


Dec.  10,  1834. 

EDWIN    PORTER. 

Edwin  Porter,  being  first  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following   answers  to  the 

respective  interrogatories,  to  wit: 

Question  I.  Since  you  appeared  before  the  committee  in  September  or 
about  the  1st  of  October  last,- and  time  was  given  you  to  settle  your  ac- 
count with  the  department  before  proceeding  in  your  examination,  has  any 
officer  of  the  department  suggested  to  you  that  it  would  be  best  to  leave 
that  settlement  unfinished  until  the  end  of  the  session?  And  if  any,  tell 
us  who. 

Answer  1.  No;  I  have  had  no  conversation  with  any  officer  on  the 
subject  of  postponement,  nor  any  suggestion  of  postponement.  At  one 
time  in  the  department,  when  I  was  urging  the  settlement  of  my  account, 
Mr.  0.  B.  Brown  had  been  below  with  Mr.  Barry  on  the  subject  of  my 
settlement,  and  when  he  returned,  he  said  he  should  suppose  that  a  state- 
ment of  the  account  before  the  end  of  the  session  was  all  that  was  ne- 
cessary. 

Question  2.  Have  you  yet  brought  that  account  to  final  settlement,  so 
that  you  can  give  us  the  true  state  of  your  accounts  with  the  depart- 
ment? 

Answer  2.  I  have  not,  but  I  have  the  promise  of  it  this  morning;  so 
that  I  hope  1  shall  be  prepared  to-morrow. 

Question  3.  You  stated  to  the  committee  on  your  examination  last 
spring,  that  you  had  no  partnership  with  any  of  the  officers  of  the  depart- 
ment in  any  of  your  mail  contracts.  State  now  whether  there  was  any 
conversation  preliminary  to,  or  any  proposition  from  any  officer  of  the 
department,  as  to  forming  such  partnership,  or  taking  an  interest,  in  any 
way,  in  any  of  your  contracts.  If  there  were,  state  particularly  all  about 
it,  and  who  was  the  officer. 

Answer  3.  There  was  a  conversation  and  a  proposition  from  me  to  Mr. 
Brown,  to  take  an  interest  in  the  New  Orleans  concern,  after  the  mail  was 
made  a  daily  one.  Mr.  Brown  said,  in  the  first  instance,  he  thought  he 
would  be  interested  with  me  in  this  concern,  and  advanced  me  three 
thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  which  I  understood  to  be  the  money  of  Dr. 
Jackson.  After  some  lime  had  elapsed  Mr.  Brown  declined  an  interest, 
and  I  gave  him  my  note  for  the  money. 

Question  4.  Did  he  not  make  a  second  advance  of  money  to  you  before 
he  declined  taking  an  interest? 

Answer  4.  He  did;  four  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  for  which  1  also 
afterwards  gave  my  note. 

Question  5.  When  you  made  those  notes,  did  you  not  date  them  as  of 
the  day  the  money  was  advanced,  instead  of  the  day  on  which  they  were  in 
fact  executed? 

Answer  S.  The  first  one  I  did,  and  I  think  it  was  the  same  case  for 
the  other. 

Question  6.  At  what  time  did  Mr.  Brown  decline  being  a  partner  in 
this  transaction? 

Answer  6.     I  think  in  the  early  part  of  the  summer  of  1833. 

Question  7.  In  what  funds  did  he  pay  you  the  first  sum  of  money 
advanced  to  you;  was  it  iu  a  check  or  draft  upon  any  bank,  or  in  bank 
notes? 


335  [  86  ] 

Answer  7.  My  impression  is,  it  was  all  in  bank  notes;  there  might  have 
been  a  check  for  a  small  sum. 

Question  S.  Was  any  person  present,  besides  yourself  and  Mr.  Brown, 
at  the  time  this  money  was  advanced  to  you;  or  was  any  entry  made  of  it 
in  the  books  of  either  of  you,  or  any  writing  passed  between  you  con- 
cerning it? 

Answer  S.     Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  9.     In  what  place  was  this  money  paid  to  you? 

Answer  9.  I  should  think  at  two  or  three  different  times,  at  his  own 
house.  The  second  advance  was  paid  in  the  same  kind  of  money,  and 
also,  I  think,  at  his  house. 

Question  10.  From  January,  1S32,  until  the  summer  of  1833,  was  the 
Nevv  Orleans  contract  a  profitable  or  a  losing  concern? 

Answer  10.  From  letters  which  we  had  from  our  agent,  we  considered 
it  a  very  profitable  business  until  the  winter  afterwards. 

Question  11.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  consider  Mr.  Brown  as  your 
partner  from  January,  1S32,  until  in  the  summer  of  1833? 

■Answer  11.  I  did  not.  If  I  had,  I  should  have  had  articles  of  copart- 
nership, as  I  always  did  in  my  business. 

Question  12.  Had  the  route  been  productive,  and  Mr.  Brown  had  de- 
manded'dividend  of  the  profits,  would  you  not  have  paid  it  to  him? 

Answer  13.     I  should  not. 

Question  13.  For  what  reason  would  you  not  have  paid  him  before  he 
declined  being  a  partner? 

Answer  13.  Because  I  did  not  consider  him  a  partner  until  he  had 
decided  to  be  a  partner,  and  articles  were  drawn  between  us. 

Question  14.     Did  he  or  did  he  not  advance  his  money  as  a  partner? 

Answer  14.      I  considered  the  money  as  loaned. 

Question  15.  Did  you  consider  the  money  as  loaned  when  the  three 
thousand  five  hundred  dollars  were  advanced? 

Answer  15.  I  did,  until  Mr.  Brown  decided  whether  he  would  take  an 
interest  or  not. 

Question  IG.  Did  Mr.  Brown  tell  you  whether  he  or  Dr.  Jackson  was 
to  be  the  partner  when  the  money  was  first  advanced? 

Answer  IG.  I  do  not  recollect  that  there  was  any  conversation  on  the 
subject. 

Question  17.  How  long  after  the  first  advance  of  money  did  you  inform 
any  person  that  Mr.  ]3rown  was  a  partner,  or  did  you  ever  so  inform  any 
person? 

Answer  17.  I  do  not  know,  but  I  dare  say  I  might  have  said  to  Wm.  A. 
Bradley,  who  was  interested  with  me  in  that  contract,  that  Mr.  Brown  had 
a  right  to  be  interested  in  the  contiact. 

Question  IS.  At  what  time  did  you  so  inform  Mr  Bradley,  to  the  best 
of  your  recollection? 

Answer  IS.  1  cannot  .say.  I  su])pose,  if  I  had  any  conversation  with 
Mr.  Bradley,  it  would  be  at'the  time  of  advancing  the'money. 

Question  19.  What  portion  of  your  time  did  you  spend  in  Washington, 
during  the  year  of  1832,  or  how  often  did  you  visit  the  city  in  that  year? 

Answer  19.  My  impression  is,  I  was  not  oftencr  here  than  once  a  quar- 
ter, until  I  removed  here,  which  was,  I  think,  in  the  fall  of  1832. 

Question  20.     In  the  course  of  that  year,  did  not  you  and  Mr.  Brown 


[8«] 


336 


frequently   converse  on  the  subject  of  that  route;  of  its  profits  and  iis 
losses? 

Answer  20.  I  should  not  think  there  was  any  cbnversation.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  any. 

Question  21.  Was  the  amount  agreed  upon  and  the  contract  closed  for 
carrying  the  mail  on  the  New  Orleans  route  before  you  and  Mr.  Brown 
had  any  communication  or  conversation,  directly  or  indirectly,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  partnership? 

Answer  21.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  before  closing  the  contract. 
I  should  think  there  was  none.  My  reason  is,  that  the  contract  must  have 
been  concluded  months  before,  or  it  could  not  have  gone  into  operation  on 
the  1st  of  January,  1832. 

Question  22.  At  the  time  Mr.  Brown  declined  having  an  interest  in  the 
contract,  did  he  know  whether  or  not  the  contract,  up  to  that  time,  was 
considered  a  profitable  one? 

Answer  22.  I  do  not  know  that  I  had  any  particular  conversation  with 
Mr.  Brown.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any.  I  thought  it  a  profitable  con- 
cern at  that  time. 

Question  2.3.  Was  it  the  understanding  between  you  and  Mr.  Brown, 
when  he  advanced  the  three  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  and  he  was 
given  time  to  decide  as  to  being  a  partner,  that  whenever  he  did  decide  to 
become  a  partner,  he  would  iiave  a  right  to  claim  part  of  the  profits  of  the 
contract  from  the  beginning? 

Answer  23.     Yes. 

Question  24,  Had  the  Postmaster  General,  at  any  time,  any  knowledge 
of  the  propositions,  understanding,  or  conversations,  between  you  and  Mr. 
Brown  on  this  subject? 

Answer  24.     None  on  earth,  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  25.  Had  you  any  other  partner  in  that  New  Orleans  route  be- 
sides Wm.  A.  Bradley?     If  so,  name  him. 

Answer  25.  Yes.  Dr.  Frederick  May,  of  this  city,  Mr.  Sidney  Porter, 
of  Fredericksburg,  Jourdan  Woolfolk,  Caroline  county,  Va, ,  were  inte- 
rested as  members  of  the  Potomac  Steamboat  Company,  which  owns  stock 
in  this  line. 

Question  2G.  What  proportion  of  interest  was  Mr.  Brown  to  have  in  the 
whole  contract,  if  he  decided  to  become  a  partner? 

Answer  26.  The  stock  is  held  in  siiaresof  one  thousand  dollars  each,  and 
Mr.  Brown  had  advanced  thirty-five  hundred  dollars,  which  I  suppose 
would  be  abt)ut  one-eighth  of  the  whole. 

Question  27.  Have  you  books  belonging  lo  this  partnership?  If  you 
have,  in  whose  custody  are  they,  and  who  is  your  book-keeper? 

Answer  27.  Mr.  Wm.  A.  Bradley  is  president  of  the  company,  and  has 
always  kept  the  books  of  the  company. 

Question  28.  Was  the  stock  invested  entered  in  those  books  to  the  credit 
of  each  partner,  as  money  or  slock  was  advanced? 

Answer  28.   That  is  my  impression. 

Question  29.  Is  this  sum  of  ^3,500  advanced  by  Mr.  Brown  entered  on 
those  books? 

Answer  29.  No,  it  is  not. 

Question  30.  Did  you  report  to  your  book-keeper  the  fact  of  its  receipt 
at  the  time  it  was  received? 


037  [   86  ] 

Answer  SO.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Question  31.  Was  {hat  money  applied  in  any  way  to  this  contract?  If 
so,  how? 

Answer  31.  I  did  not  apply  it  to  any  thing  sj)ecial,  no  more  than  any 
other  funds  in  my  hancis. 

Question  32.  Was  this  then  the  luulerstandin!^  with  jNTr.  Brown,  that  if 
he  choose  to  be  a  partner,  he  was  to  be  your  partner,  and  not  the  partner 
of  the  company  <^enerail}',  and  known  to  them  as  such? 

Answer  32.  Ye^,  he  was  to  be  my  partner,  and  not  the  partner  of  the 
company.    He  was  to  have  a  portion  of  ni)' stock.    I  held  about  one  half.    ^ 

Question  33.  VN'hen  you  gave  your  notes  to  Mr.  Brown,  liow  did  you 
ascertain  what  amount  of  money  he  had  advanced  to  you,  and  the  time  of 
each  advance.      Had  you  any  writini^s  or  memorandums  to  rel'er  to? 

Answer  33.  The  money  from  Mr.  Brovvn  was  advanced  within  a  few 
days;  the  whole  of  it,  that  is  the  $3,500,  and  I  could  not  mistake  the 
amount.  I  presume  I  had  some  mcmoranduin.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any. 

Question  34.  Did  not  the  wlsoie,  or  some  part  of  the  money  advanced  to 
you  by  Mr.  ]3rovvn,  com.c  from  the  department  in  the  form  of  an  extra  al- 
lowance, or  as  compensation  for  an  express,  or  iu  some  other  form  or  man- 
ner? 

Answer  34.  Not  one  dollar.      It  was  all  paid  mc  in  money. 

Question  35.  When  did  Mr.  Brown  first  tell  you  that  this  money  was 
the  money  of  Dr.  Jackson? 

Answer  35.   It  is  my  impression  it  was  at  the  lime  of  advancing  it. 

Question  36.  Did  he  say  so  likewise  of  the  four  thousand  five  hundred 
dollars  at  the  time  of  advancing  that? 

Answer  36.  VVhen  he  lent  me  th.e  four  thousand  live  liundred  dollars,  he 
expressly  stated  it  belonged  to  the  estate  of  Dr.  Jackson. 

Question  37.   Did  he  tell  you  in  what  way  it'came  into  his  hands? 

Answer  37.   He  did  not. 

Question  38.   To  whom  were  your  notes  made  payable? 

Answer  SS.   To  0.  B.  Brown. 

Question  39.  You  stated  that  this  sum  of  §3,500  was  given  fo  you  at 
different  times  at  Mr.  Brown's  house.  Was  any  reason  stated  why  the 
whole  sum  was  not  handed  to  you  at  once  by  Mr.  Brown? 

Answer  39.  Mr.  Brown  stated  he  had  some  of  the  money  lent  out,  and 
could  not  get  it  for  two  or  three  daj-s. 

Question  40.   At  what  time  did  you  rec.fivc  the  first  part  of  the  $3,500? 

Answer  40  I  should  think  it  was  all  received  within  the  first  two  weeks 
of  January,  1832.  « 

Question  41 .  When  Mr.  13rown  spoke  to  you  of  the  settlement  not  being 
finished  before  the  end  of  the  session,  did  he  at  tliat  time  give  any  reason 
for  its  not  being  important  to  have  it  closed  before  that  time? 

Answer  41.  He  did  not.  I  have  seen  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  any 
officer  to  delay  my  settlement.     It  was  for  the  want  of  time. 

Question  42.  Since  you  have  been  under  examination  before  us,  have 
you  had  any  conversation  with  any  officer  or  clerk  of  the  department,  con- 
cerning the  evidence  which  you  had  given,  or  was  about  to  give  to  the 
committee? 

Answer  42.   Not  any. 

Question  43.  Is  your  account  yet  settled? 

Answer  43.   I  believe  it  is.  EDWIN  POUTER. 

*  43 


[  86  ]  338 

Supplemen tal  Deposition. 

December  IS,  1834. 

Edwin  Porter    being    ogaln    sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the    re- 
spective interrogatories  as  follows,  viz. : 

Question  1.  Did  you  pay  at  any  time  to  0.  B.  Brown  a  sum  of  one 
thousand  dollars?  If  so,  state  when,  on  what  account,  and  all  the  circum- 
stances which  led  to  such  payment. 

Answer  1.  I  have  heretofore  stated  in  my  testimony  that  I  had  received 
from  Mr.  Brown  the  sum  of  four  thousand  five  hundred  dollars.  This 
sum  was  received  from  him  in  November,  1832.  About  thai  time  J.  N.  C, 
Stockton  applied  to  me  at  Fredericksburg  or  Washington,  to  become  in- 
terested with  him  in  purchasing  out  the  interest  of  Stockton  and  Stokes  in 
several  routes  in  Virginia.  He  went  to  Baltimore  to  ascertain  the  terms  of 
the  purchase.  During  his  absence,  I  consulted  Mr.  Brown  as  to  the  expe- 
diency of  purchasing  into  this  contract,  observing  at  the  same  time  that  the 
amount  of  the  purchase  would  probably  be  greater  than  I  could  raise,  and 
that  I  would  like  some  one  to  become  interested  with  me  if  1  did  purchase. 
Mr.  Brown  observed  that  he  had  some  money  in  his  hands  belonging  to 
the  estate  of  Dr.  Jackson,  which  he  would  like  to  invest  if  I  found  it  in- 
convenient to  raise  the  whole  sum.  Immediately  after  this,  J.  N.  C.  Stock- 
Ion  returned  from  Baltimore,  and  told  nje  the  terms  of  sale.  Those  terms 
were,  eighteen  thousand  dollars  cash,  for  the  interest  of  Stockton  and  Stokes. 
I  then  informed  Mr.  Brown, what  the  terms  were,  and  I  raised  the  sum  of 
nine  thousand  dollars  for  a  few  days,  and  gave  it  to  J.  N.  C.  Stockton:  he 
took  the  money  and  closed  the  concern  with  Stockton  and  Stokes,  so  far  as 
I  was  concerned.  In  the  course  of  a  few  days  JNIr.  Brown,  who  was  not 
able  on  that  day  to  raise  the  money,  did  raise  and  pay  me  the  four  thou- 
sand live  hundred  dollars  on  account  of  one  half  of  the  purchase,  as  before 
stated.  Things  remained  in  this  situation  until  the  summer  of  1S33,  at 
the  time  he,  Mr.  Brown,  declined  being  a  partner  on  the  New  Orleans 
route.  It  was  then  proposed  to  close  both  concerns,  and  I  gave  Mr.  Brown 
one  thousand  dollars  to  leave  the  concern  purchased  from  Stockton  and 
Stokes,  and  for  one  year's  interest  on  the  four  thousand  five  hundred  dollars, 
and  gave  him  my  note  for  this  sum,  dated  one  year  after  the  money  was  first 
paid  by  him. 

Question  2.  Had  the  Postmaster  General  any  knowledge  of  these  trans- 
actions between  you  and  Mr.  Brown? 

Answer  2.   None  on  earth,  that  I  know  of. 

EDWIN  PORTER. 


[Doc   No    128.] 

JOHN    B.     MORRIS. 

The  deposition  of  John   B.  IMorris,   of  JNIaryland,   taken  at  Washington 

city,  January  20,  1835;  who,  being  first  sworn,  says: 

Question  1,  (by  INIr.  Ewing.)  Are  you  one  of  the  trustees  to  whom  the 
efiiects  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland  were  assigned,  after  that  bank  stopped  pay- 
ment? And,  if  so,  what  do  you  know  respecting  a  deposite  made  in  said 
bank  by  0.  B.  Brown,  and  a  certificate  issued  therefor  to  said  Brown,  and 


339  [  S6  ] 

of  a  credit  subsequently  given  to  llie  Generol  Post  Office  therefor?  And 
what  was  the  value  of  the  paper  of  that  hank  at  the  time  the  certificate  was 
deposited  to  the  credit  of  the  Post  Office  Department? 

Answer.  I  am  one  of  the  trustees  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland.  I  have 
examined  the  books  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland,  with  reference  to  a  deposite 
made  therein  hy  0.  B.  Brown,  and  find  the  verity  of  a  certificate  of  R. 
Wilson,  cashier,  sustained  in  every  particular,  which  is  as  follows: 

"Bank  of  IMauyland,  January  IS,  1835. 

"I  certify  that,  hy  the  books  of  the  Bank  of  Maryland,  it  appears  that  a 
certificate  was  issued  on  the  3d  May,  1S33,  to  0.  B,  Brown,  No.  1709,  for 
the  sum  of  *2,000,  hearing  an  interest  at  the  rafe  of  5  per  cent,  per  annum, 
which  certificate,  with  interest  to  the  22d  March,  1834,  was  ci-edited  the 
Post  Office  Department  the  9th  September,  183-1,  amounting  to  §2,088  Gl, 
principal  and  interest. 

R.  WILSON,  Cashier. 

The  following  letter  of  0.  B.  Brown,  dated  6th  September,  1834,  I  found 
among  the  papers  of  the  trustees  of  said  bank,  and  is  herein  inserted,  as 
follows: 

Post  Office  Departmext, 
Division  of  Finance,  September  Q,  1834. 

Sir:  The  Postmaster  General  directs  that  the  enclosed  certificate,  dated 
May  3,  1833,  for  S2,000,  with  interest  to  the  22d  March,  1834,  amountincr 
together  to  S2,0SS  Gl,  be  deposited  in  the  Bank  of  Maryland,  to  the  credit 
of  this  department.      Please  deposite  it  accordingly. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

0.  B.  BROWN, 
Chief  Clerk  and  Treasurer  of  I  he  Post  Office  Department. 

Nathaniel  Williams,  Esq., 

District  Jiltorney,  Baltimore,  Md. 

With  respect  to  that  branch  of  the  inquiry  which  relates  to  the  nature  of 
Bank  of  Maryland  funds  at  the  time  the  certificate  was  deposited,  I  answer, 
that  they  gravitated  from  the  day  of  the  failure  of  the  bank,  and  am  not  able 
to  say  what  was  the  precise  point  to  which  the}'  had  fallen  in  September 
last;  but,  from  a  transaction  fresh  in  my  recollection,  that  occurred  in  Au- 
gust previous,  I  am  able  to  state,  with  certainty,  they  were  then  selling  at 
from  ^'^^Q-  to  -^y^j.  in  the  100;  and  am  induced  to  believe,  from  the  constant 
depression,  that  they  would  not  command  more  at  the  time  of  the  deposit- 
ing, September  9,  1834. 

J.  B.  MORRIS. 


[Doc.  No.  129.] 

Western  Bank,  Piin.ADELrniA, 

November  12,  1834. 

Gentlemen:  la  answer  to  your  inquiries  made  at  the  bank  this  day,  I 
have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  statement: 

On  the  21st  day  of  November,  1832,  a  draft  drawn  by  James  Rcesldc,  on 


[  86  ]  340 

C.  K.  Gardner,  trcnsurcr,  &c. ,  dated  19lh  of  Ihc  f^amo  month,  at  sixty 
days,  for  six  thousand  dollar?,  was  discounted  at  this  bank,  and  the  proceeds 
placed  to  the  creilit  of  Mr.  Reeside,  to  wit,  five  thousand  nine  hundred  and 
ten  dollars;  by  whom  the  same  amount  was  deposited  to  the  credit  of  the 
Post  Office  Department  on  the  30th  day  of  the  same  month. 

On  the  10th  of  January  following,  Mr.  Reeside  placed  to  the  credit  of 
the  department,  on  the  books  of  this  bank,  ninety  dollars,  being  the  amount 
of  the  discount  and  exchange  on  the  aforesaid  draft.  The  amount  thus 
placed  to  the  credit  of  the  Post  Office  Department  was  drawn  for  at  differ- 
ent times,  and  the  draft  was  paid  at  maturity,  at  tiie  Patriotic  Bank;  to 
which  institution  I  had  transmitted  it  for  collection. 

On  the  29th  day  of  April,  1833,  Mr.  0.  B.  Brown,  as  treasurer  of  the 
Post  Office  Department,  negotiated  with  this  bank  a  loan  for  fifty  thousand 
dollars,  at  an  interest  of  six  per  cent,  payable  six  months  after  date,  with  the 
privilege  of  renewing  it,  when  due,  for  six  months  longer,  should  the  Post- 
master General  require  it. 

On  the  31st  of  October  following,  the  loan  was  continued,  at  the  request 
of  the  department,  for  six  months  longer,  and  was  paid  oif  at  maturity,  in 
the  following  maaner: 

The  sum  of  ;^10,926   GG     out  of  the   moneys  then  standing  in  this  bank  to 

the  credit  of  the  department. 
"  19,386  67     was  placed   to   the  credit  of  the  department  by 

Richard  C.  Stockton,  being  the  proceeds  of  his 
draft  drawn  on  0.  B.  Brown,  treasurer  cf  tlie 
Post  Office  Department,  and  endorsed  by  James 
Reeside,  dated  29th  April,  at  six  m.onths,  for 
§20,000. 
"  19,6S6  67     was  placed  to   the    credit   of  the  department  by 

James  Reeside,  being  the  proceeds  of  his  draft 
drawn  on  0.  B.  Brown,  treasurer,  &c.,  and  en- 
dorsed by  R.  C.  Stockton,  dated  29th  April,  at 
three  months,  for  $20,000. 


Total        g50,Q00  00 

The  latter  draft  fell  due  Aug.  2d,  and  was  charged  to  the  departnicnt  at  ma- 
turity;  at  which  time  the  proceeds  of  another  draft  drawn  by  J.  Reeside  onjO. 
B.  Brown,  treasurer,  and  endorsed  by  Richard  C.  Stocton,  dated  July  31,  at 
sixty  days,  for  ^10,000,  were  deposited  by  Mr.  Rcesiee  to  the  credit  of 
the  department. 

The  former  draft  for  S20,000  fell  due  November  1,  and  was  charged  at 
maturity  to  the  Post  Office  Department,  and  paid  out  of  the  funds  then 
standing  to  its  credit  on  the  books  of  the  bank. 

The  draft  for  S10,000,  as  described  above,  fell  due  October  1,  and  was 
charged  to  the  Post  Office  Department  at  maturity,  and  paid  out  of  the  funds 
then  standing  to  its  credit  on  the  books  of  the  bank;  to  the  increase  of  which, 
the  sum  of  i39,S43  34  was  deposited  by  Mr.  Reeside  on  the  20th  day  of 
September  previous,  and  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  department. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

J.  B.  TRE\^OR,  Cashier. 
Messrs.  Ewing,  Grundy,  and  the  other 

members  of  the  committee,  &c.  &c. 


341  [   iG   "1 

[Doc.   No.  130.] 

JOHN    p.     WHEELER. 

December  20,  1S34. 
John  P.  Wheeler,  being  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the  respective 

interrogatories : 

Question  1.  Are  you  the  keeper  of  one  of  the  legers  in  the  Post 
Office  Department? 

Answer  1.      I  am. 

Question  2.  When  and  liow  was  an  alteration  made  in  the  leger  kept 
by  you,  from  a  charge  of  820,000  against  R.  C.  Stockton  to  a  charge  to 
James  Reeside. 

Answer.  2.  This  day,  about  two  o'clock,  I  made  the  alteration:  Mr. 
Brown  directed  it.  I  had  not  heard  of  any  suggestion  of  error  in  tliat  par- 
ticidar  before  that  time. 

Question  3,  Was  there  not  a  cop}-  made  out  from  your  leger  a  few 
weeks  since  of  R.  C.  Stockton's  account? 

Answer  3.   Yes;  I  think  the  account  was  taken  uj)  to  the  1st  July  last. 

Question  4.  How  did  )-ou  make  that  alteration  in  the  account  uf  Mr. 
Reeside? 

Answer  4.     I  erased  an  entry  as  follows: 

"  August  22.      Cash  ....  §700."' 

And  I  inserted  in  its  place  the  charge  against  Mr.  Reeside,  as  follows: 
<' August  22.      Cash  -  I  -  .  ^^20,000." 

And  then  inserted  the  erased  entry  at  the  foot  of  the  account. 

Question  5.      Did  you  do  that  by  the  instructions  of  Mr.  Brown? 

Answer  5.  Mr.  Brown  suggested  that  mode  to  me,  and  left  me  to  do  ai? 
I  thought  proper. 

JOHN  P.  WHEELER, 


[Doc.  No.  131.] 

NICHOLAS    TASTET. 

Beccmhcr  20,   1S34. 

Question.  Arc  you  the  clerk  who  made  tlie  original  charge  in  the  cash 
book  of  the  Post  Office  Department  of  *iO,000  agamst  Richard  C.  Stock- 
ton? 

Answer.      I  am. 

Question.      Upon  what  voucher  did  you  make  that  entry? 

Answer.      I  had  no  voucher,  but  did  it  by  Mr.  Brown's  direction. 

Question.      When  was  the  entry  made? 

Answer.      In  the  year  1S34;  the  cash-book  will  show  the  dav. 

Question.  When  and  by  whose  direction  has  that  charge  been  altered; 
and  how  is  it  altered? 

Answer.  This  day,  the  20th  December,  1S34,  about  two  o'clock,  bv 
Mr.  Brown's  direction,  stood,  originally,  a  charge  against  R.  C.  Stockton; 
the  alteration  makes  it  a  charge  against  James  Reeside. 

Question.  What  conversation  took  place  between  Mr.  Brown  and  your- 
self when  he  directed  the  alteration  to  be  made? 


[   S6   ]  342 

Answer.      lie  observed  tliat  all  was  wrong,  and  directed  me  to  make  tlie 
alteration. 

N.  TASTET. 


[Doe.    No.  132.]  * 

Hj  C.  K.     GARDNER. 

December  20,  1834. 

Question  1.  In  the  account  of  James  Reeside,  as  made  out  by  the  de- 
partment for  the  committee,  there  is  this  entry  to  the  credit  of  Mr.  Reeside; 
"11th  Oct.,  1833.  Cash  deposited  inWestern  Bank  of  Philadelphia  30th 
November,  1S32,  S6, 000."  Can  you  inform  the  committee  how  that  credit 
arises,  or  produce  any  papers  explanatory  thereof? 

Answer  1.  I  think  I  can  explain  it.  Mr.  Sutor  wrote  to  r\fr.  Reeside 
to  make  his  draft,  and  deposite  the  amount  of  S6,000,  to  the  credit  of  the 
department,  in  the  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia,  to  enable  the  depart- 
ment to  meet  its  checks  drawn  and  to  be  drawn  on  that  bank.  This  mode 
of  raising  the  money  or  supplying  the  deficiency  of  the  department  was 
suggested  b}-  the  Postmaster  General,  and  some  discussion  was  had  on  the 
subject;  but  we  concluded  to  avoid  that  mode  of  supplying  the  department 
in  future,  apprehending  the  impropriety  of  being  dependent  on  the  credit 
of  contractors  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  department,  and  we  avoided  it 
until  the  deficiencies  of  the  department  in  December,  1S32,  rendered  it 
necessary  to  make  the  first  loan  of  the  Manhattan  Company  of  250,000. 

Question  2.  Was  that  draft  of  86,000  accepted  by  the  department,  and 
paid  by  the  department  at  its  maturity? 

Answer  2.      It  was,  and  paid  at  maturity. 

Question  3.  ^Vas  the  amount  ever  charged  to  Reeside?  If  so,  point  it  out 
on  his  account. 

Answers.  I  have  not  examined  his  account.  [It  was  then  handed  to 
witness.]     I  do  not  find  it  here. 

Question  4.  Is  that  charged  to  him  anywhere  on  your  books?  If  so, 
produce  them. 

Witness  having  brought  certam  books,  answers:  I  find  in  the  cash  book, 
page  359,  under  date  of  12th  January,  1833,  an  entry  to  the  debit  of 
James  Reeside,  for  payment  of  his  draft  of  six  thousand  dollars. 

And  also  leger.  No.  7,  (middle,)  folio  270,  on  which  is  the  account 
of  James  Reeside,  in  which  there  is  a  debit,  12th  January,  1S33,  <'  Cash, 
6,000  dollars." 

Witness  then  produced  the  original  draft,  which,  with  its  endorsements, 
is  as  follows: 

Philadelphia,  November  19,  1S32. 
Dolls.  6,000. 

On  the  10th  day  of  January  next  please  pay  to  my  own  order,  six 
thousand  dollars,  value  received,  and  charge  same  to  account  of 

Yours,  &c., 

J  AS.  REESIDE. 
Accepted:  C.  K.  GARDNER, 

^.  P.  M.  Gen 
Charles  K.  Gardner,  Esq., 

Jlssistaiit  Postmaster  General,  Washington. 


343  [   86   ] 

Endorsed — 5162. 

Genl.  P.  Office— 6,000— lO-l-S  January. 
E. 
James  Reeside,  pay  G,  E.  Dyson,  esq.^  cashier,  or  order. 

J.  B.  TREVOR,  Caiihier. 
GEO.  E.  DYSON,  CashUr. 
James  Reeside.  12^A  January,  1S33. 

S6,000. 
January,   1S33. 

I  am  satisfied  that  the  above  draft  is  the  same  as  that  charged  to  James 
Reeside  in  the  cash  book  and  leger,  as  above  referred  to. 

C.  K.  GARDNER. 

Question  5.  We  find  on  the  account  of  James  Reeside  a  charge  against 
him,  of  12lh  January,  1833,  "  Cash,  Bank  U.  S.,  BaUiniore,  $6,000."  Is 
that  the  same  sum  of  $6,000  which  you  find  in  the  casii  book  and  leger, 
as  stated  in  your  above  deposition? 

Answer  5.  The  payment  was  ^6,100,  as  appears  by  the  following 
check: 

Post  Ori'icE  Department,  Washington, 

No.  4,161.  January  12,  1833. 

3  .2  Bank  of  the  United  States,  office  at  Baltimore,  pay  G.  E.  Dyson, 

^5-2  Cashier,  or  order,  six  thousand  one  hundred  dollars. 

^  I  J  C.  K.  GARDNER, 

;S  ^  -'  Assistant  Postmaster  General. 

1=  I  ^*  §6,100.     Registered, 

^  H  0.  B.  Brown,   Chief  Clerk. 

Endorsed  by  Geo.  E.  Dyson,  to  R.  Wilson,  Esq.,  Cashier,  or  order, 
and  signed  R.  Wilson,  Cashier, 

The  requisition  on  Vv^hich  the  check  was  given  as  above,  is  in  the  follow- 
ing words: 

Post  Office  Department,  Pay  Office, 

January  12,  1833. 
I   certify  that  a  check   is  required  for   $6,100,    to   pay  the   following 
draft,  viz.: 

Drawer's  name.  Date.  In  whose  favor.  Amount. 

W.  Y.  WetzeL  19th  Sept.,  1832.          W.  P.  Hunt  -         SlOO  00 

James  Reeside.         19th  Nov.       '•'  To  order        -         -        6,000  00 


$6,100  GO 


Favor  G.  E.  Dyson,  Cashier, 

4161.  A 

On  account  of  pay  for  transporting  the  mail  to  January,  1833. 

JOHN  SUTER, 
Approved:  Principal  Fay  Clerk. 

C.  K.  Gardner: 

t'lssislant  Postmaster  General. 


[  86  ]  344 

Endorsed  No.  4161.     Transpoilation. 

The  Patriotic  Bank  held  the  two  drafts  on  tlic  department,  as  appears  by 
the  certificate;  one  of  i5lOO,  to  b3  cliarged  to  account  of  Wetzel;  and  the 
other  of  §0,000,  to  be  charged  to  Reeside.  One  check  was  given  to  cover 
both  sums. 

'J'he  certificate,  as  above,  was  made  on  the  principle,  that  Reeside  had 
refunded  on  the  19th  November,  1S32,  so  much  money  due  him  for  the 
transportation  of  tiie  mail,  and  consequently,  the  same  sum  of  money  re- 
mained due  to  him  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail,  (which  was  paid  on 
the  12th  January,  1S33,  to  wit,  g6,000,)  of  pay  for  the  preceding  quarter 
just  expired,  which  frequently  and  habitually  occurs  in  the  accounts  of  the 
lar<^e  contractors,  who  are  not  often  entirely  paid  up,  and  whose  accounts 
are  not  finally  adjusted  till  the  last  quarter  of  their  contracts.  The  terms 
of  the  draft  of  Mr.  Reeside  required  that  the  sum  drawn  for  should  be 
charged  in  his  account  <'  for  transportation."  The  introduction,  liowcver, 
of  these  items  into  the  general  account  of  expenditures,  was  a  further 
objection  to  this  mode  of  relieving  the  department. 

Wednesday^  January  21,  IS 34. 

Question.  Before  drawing  this  check  for  transportation  as  it  appears  to 
be  drawn,  did  you  examine  the  account  of  JNlr.  Reeside,  to  see  whether 
that  balance  was  in  fact  due  him? 

Answer.  No;  it  was  not  necessary;  I  knew  the  amount  had  been  de- 
posited to  the  credit  of  the  department,  and  that  the  same  amount  was  there- 
fore due;  and  it  was  not  usual  for  me  to  examine  the  accounts,  after  receiving 
the  certificate  of  the  principal  pay  clerk  that  the  amount  stated  in  the  cer- 
tificate was  due. 

Question.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  know  that  this  was  not  in  fact  to  pay 
for  transportation  to  that  individual?   . 

Answer.  I  say  no,  on  the  principle  I  have  previously  explained,  that 
the  money  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  department  by  Mr.  Reeside  became 
merged  in  his  account  for  transportation^  and,  therefore,  there  was  so  much 
due  him  on  his  account. 

January  21,1835. 

Question.  Was  not  this  check  given  specially  to  meet  that  acceptance  of 
the  department,  and  so  applied? 

Answer.  It  was  given  to  meet  that  acceptance,  and  charged  accordingly, 
that  is,   6,000  of  the  $6,100  check. 

Question.  You  say  this  mode  of  raising  .money  was  suggested  by  the 
Postmaster  General,  Was  this  mode  of  keeping  the  accounts,  so  far  as  it 
related  to  such  money,  suggested  by  him  also,  or  agreed  upon  with  his 
knowledge  and  assent? 

Answer.  He  suggested  no  change  in  the  mode  of  keeping  the  accounts, 
and  of  course  agreed  to  no  variation  from  the  established  mode.  No  varia- 
tion was  proposed  to  him. 

Question.  By  whom  of  the  officers  of  the  department  was  this  mode  of 
certifying  checks  to  pay  for  these  loans,  as  checks  for  transportation,  pro- 
posed, and  by  whom  agreed  upon? 

Answer.  There  was  no  proposition,  which  1  heard,  from  any  one,  to 
var}'  the  established  mode. 


345  [  S6  ] 

Question.  Do  you  call  this  entry  on  the  margin  of  the  checks  <'  irons- 
portation'^  /orm,  or  is  it  substance? 

Answer.     It  is  the  form  referring  to  the  substance. 

Question.  If  the  substance  be  not  transportation ,  do  you  deem  it  cor- 
rect to  put  down  transportation  on  the  margin  of  the  check  by  way  of 
form? 

Answer.  If  the  sum  named  in  the  check  be  due  on  "the  account  for 
transportation"  of  the  contractor  in  whose  favor  the  check  is  drawn,  the 
payment  is  made  on  that  account,  to  wit,  transportation^  and,  therefore, 
the  form  is  correct;  but  it  would,  perhaps,  have  been  better  to  have  placed 
these  items  under  a  new  head,  and,  if  requisite,  obtained  the  Postmaster 
General's  authority  for  the  new  heading.  «i 

Question.  When  did  you  first  raise  money  for  the  use  of  the  depart- 
ment in  this  way? 

Answer.  This  was  the  first  instance,  after  which  it  was  determined,  on 
my  part,  to  abandon  this  mode. 

C.  K.  GARDNER. 

January  12,  1835. 

Question.  Are  you  the  superintendent  of  mail  contracts  for  the  southern 
and  southwestern  division  of  the  United  States;  and  if  so,  how  long  have 
you  been  so? 

Answer.     I  am  and  have  been  since  6lh  March,  1833. 

Question.  Since  that  time  have  the  old  contracts  in  that  division  expired 
and  have  new  ones  been  made? 

Answer.  They  have  expired  and  new  ones  have  been  made,  except  that 
for  the  last  lettings,  in  October  last,  the  contracts  have  not  all  been  com- 
pleted, but  are  in  the  course  of  execution. 

Question.  In  advertising  for  the  proposals,  have  you  advertised  for  all 
the  service  which  it  was  supposed  would  be  necessary  to  be  performed 
during  the  existence  of  the  contract? 

Answer.  The  rule  adopted  in  drawing  up  proposals  for  advertisement 
for  both  the  last  proposals,  was  to  embrace  the  whole  of  the  service  which 
was  required.  In  the  letting  for  1S33,  the  corresponding  clerk,  who  was 
necessarily  the  clerk  in  writing  up  the  advertisements,  was  strictly  enjoined 
to  express  all  the  service  that  was  then  performed,  and  intended  or  expected 
to  be  performed  during  the  contracts. 

In  drawing  up  the  advertisement  for  the  last  lettings,  in  1834,  the  reduc- 
tion of  services  determined  upon  were  taken  fnto  view,  and  the  advertise- 
ments carefully  drawn,  as  the  contracts  were  designed  to  be  made.  We 
advertised  for  as  much  service  as  we  wanted  during  the  contract 

There  were  variations  from  the  advertisements  of  the  last  lettings,  as 
where  a  stage  route  was  by  the  advertisement  reduced  to  horse  trans- 
portation, and  the  bidders  made  such  reduction  in  their  bids  for  two  horse 
stages,  as  to  efiect  the  object  of  economy  in  the  department,  and  at  the  same 
time  secure  the  public  accommodation;  such  bids  were  accepted. 

Question.  An  allowance  of  3,000  dollars  per  annum  was  made  to  J.  N. 
C.  Stockton,  on  his  letter  of  25th  February,  1833,  going  back  to  the  begin- 
ning of  1832,  on  the  route  from  Charlottesville  to  Fredericksburg,  which 
letter  and  endorsements  are  as  follow: 

44 


[  8G    ]  346 

Charlottesville,  February  25,  1833. 

Sir:  Enclosed  3-00  have  certificates  in  relation  to  the  very  heavy  ex- 
penses which  I  am  and  have  been  at  since  1831,  owing  to  the  late  arrival 
of' the  mail  from  Washington  city,  during  the  stoppage  of  navigation,  and 
the  earlier  hour,  during  the  wliole  time,  at  which  1  have  to  deliver  my  mail 
from  Charlottesville  into  Fredericksburg,  which  has  caused  me  the  addi- 
tional expense  of  three  teams,  at  one  thousand  dollars  each  per  annum. 
Which  claim  1  respectfully  submit  to  your  consideration. 

Your  most  obedient  servant, 

J.  N.  C,  STOCKTON. 
Hon.  William  T.  Barrv, 

Postviastcr  General. 

(In  red  ink) — The  contract  time  for  leaving  Fredericksburg  is  2  A.  M. 
The  new  arrangement  of  the  great  southern  mail  requires  the  arrival  at 
Fredericksburg  two  h.ours  earlier  than  contract  time. 

Granted  from  the  heginning  of  1S32. 

1951;  February  28,  1S33,  .  Additional  allowance  for  expediting  between 
Fredericksburg  and  Charlottesville,  and  for  detention,  &c. 

In  whose  handwriting  are  the  words,  "  granted  from  the  beginning  of 
1832;"  and  in  whose  hand  is  the  writing  ia  red  ink  and  on  the  back  of 
the  paper? 

Answer.  Tiie  words  "granted,  &c.,'''  are  in  the  handwriting  of  the 
Postmaster  General;  and  the  writing  in  red  ink  and  on  the  back  is  the  hand- 
writing of  0.  B.  Brown. 

Question.  Ought  not  this  letter  and  the  allowance  made  thereon,  to 
have  passed  under  the  inspection  or  through  the  hands  of  the  Assistant 
Postmaster  General  for  the  southern  division?  If  so,  did  you  ever  see  that 
letter,  or  were  you  in  any  way  instrumental  in  making  that  allowance? 

Answer.  Not  according  to  the  regulations  existing  previous  to  4th  of 
March,  1833.  I  had  no  instrumentality  in  making  the  allowance,  and 
never  saw  the  paper  before. 

Question.  VVho  had  charge  of  such  applications  for  that  route,  previous 
to  4th  March,  1833,  and  at  the  date  of  that  letter? 

Answer.     Mr.  0.  B.  Brown. 

Question.  Who  would  be  tlie  office  agent  of  bringing  that  letter,  and 
the  propriety  of  the  allowance,  to  the  notice  of  the  Postmaster  General, 
according  to  the  then  office  regulations? 

Answer.  Mr.  0.  B.  Brovirn;  and,  from  the  fact  of  the  endorsements  in 
red  ink,  I  presume  he  did  so.  C.  K.  GARDNER. 


[Doc.  No.  133.] 

WILLIAM  A.   BRADLEY. 

Question  1.  Have  you  any  knowledge,  or  have  you  heard  from  0.  B. 
Brown  or  Edwin  Porter  any  thing  respecting  a  partnership  existing  be- 
tween them,  at  any  time,  in  the  contract  for  carrying  the  mail  between 
Mobile  and  New  Orleans? 

Answer  1.  I  have  heard  from  Mr.  Porter  that  Mr.  Brown  held  an  in- 
terest in  that  concern.  I  think  it  was  either  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year 
1831  or  first  of  1832;  I  believe  in  the  fall  of  1831.     Mr.  Porter,   in  Octo- 


347  C  86  ] 

Ber,  1831,  purchased  from  Stockton  &  Stokes  an   interest  to  the  amount  of. 
15,000  dollars.     Some  time  after  the  purchase  had   been   consummated,  he 
informed  me  Mr.  Brown  was  to  have  an  interest  of  one-third   of  this  pur- 
chase.    The  purchase  was  at  about  70  per  cent,  of  the  par  value. 

Ques.  2.  Did  you  understand  from  Mr.  Porter  that  Mr.  Brown  had 
paid  money  on  his  interest? 

Ans.  2..  Yesj  I  understood  from  him  that  Mr.  Brown  had  paid  for  his 
proportion  of  the  stock. 

Ques.  3.  Do  you  know  of  Mr.  Brown  ever  having  received  any  divi- 
dend on  his  stock? 

Ans.  3.     No  dividends  were  ever  made. 

Ques.  4.  Did  Mr.  Porter  state  to  you  that  Mr.  Brown  being  interested 
was  to  be  kept  secret? 

Ans.  4.  I  do  not  know  that  he  did;  but  I  considered  the  conversatioa 
between  Mr.  Porter  and  myself  as  confidential. 

Ques.  5.  Did  Mr.  Porter  say  whether  Mr.  Brown's  purchase  was  to  be 
for  his  own  benefit  or  for  the  benefit  of  some  other  person? 

Ans.  5.  1  always  understood  it  to  be  for  Mr.  Brown's  own  benefit,  un- 
til I  saw  Mr.  Porter's  testimony  before  the  committee  last  spring. 

Ques.  6.  When  did  you  first  learn  that  Mr.  Brown's  interest  had  ceased 
in  that  concern? 

Ans.  6.     I  think  about  a  year  ago. 

Ques.  7.  Did  you  ever  converse  with  Mr.  Brown  on  the  subject  of  this 
New  Orleans  company  and  its  business?     If  so,  slate  what  was  said. 

Ans.  7.  I  never  did  converse  with  Mr.  Brown  as  if  I  knew  him  to  be  a 
partner;  but  1  have  had  incidental  conversations  with  him  from  time  to 
time,  when  I  had  business  in  the  office,  on  the  subject  of  this  contract. 
These  conversations  consisted  chiefly  of  questions  by  him  as  to  how  the 
company  was  getting  along,  and  of  my  answers.  I  presume  he  was  not 
aware  of  my  knowing  that  he  was  interested. 

Ques.  8.  What  was  supposed  to  be  the  condition  of  that  company,  as  to 
profit  or  loss,  at  the  time  you  first  heard  that  Mr.  Brown  had  ceased  to  have 
any  interest? 

Ans.  S.  At  that  time  the  stock  was  considered  by  me  to  be  worth  not 
more  than  seventy-five  per  cent,  upon  the  par  value,  and  that  the  portion 
bought  by  Mr.  Porter  was  about  equal  to  what  it  cost  him.  The  bad  ma- 
nagement of  our  agent,  who  was  also  a  partner  of  one  fourth  of  the  stock, 
was  supposed  by  us  to  be  the  occasion  of  our  losses. 

Ques.  9.  Have  you  been  interested  in  this  company,  and  have  you 
<iharge  of  the  books? 

Ans.  9.  I  have  been  from  the  beginning;  and  have  kept  the  general  ac- 
counts of  the  agents  as  transmitted  here.  ' 

Ques.  10.     Did  the  interest  of  Mr.  Brown  appear  upon  the  books? 

Ans.  10.     No,  it  did  not. 

Ques.  11.  Do  you  know  of  Mr.  Brown  having  any  interest  in,  or  re- 
ceiving any  advance  or  advantage  from  any  other  contract? 

Ans.  11.  I  only  know  from  being  told  so  by  Mr.  Porter.  He  inform- 
ed me  that  Mr.  Brown  had  an  interest  in  the  Fredericksburg  and  Charlottes- 
ville route. 

Ques.  12.  Do  you  know  if  Edwin  Porter  was  in  Washington  in  the 
-winter  of  1  S3 1-2? 


[  86  3  348 

Orleans,  and  did  not  return  for  some  time.  The  time  of  his  return  I  do  not 
recollect.  The  conversation  with  him  about  Mr.  Brown  being  concerned 
with  him  in  the  New  Orleans  concern  was  before  he  went  away. 

Ques.  13.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  officer  or  clerk  in  the  department 
being  concerned  in  any  contract  or  contracts?  Or  do  you  know  of  any  offi- 
cer or  clerk  formerly  in  the  department  having  been  concerned  directly  or 
indirectly  in  any  contract? 

Ans.  13,     I  do  not,  with  the  exception  of  one  case. 

Ques.  14.  Was  this  case  before  or  after  the  act  of  Congress  in  1825,  pro- 
hibiting clerks  in  any  post  office  from  having  any  interest  in  contracts? 

Ans.  14.     It  was  before  this  act. 

Ques.  15.  (By  Mr.  Grundy.)  Who  was  the  person  to  whom  you  al- 
lude? 

Ans.  15.  It  is  the  case  of  Dr.  Phineas  Bradley,  investigated  and  reported 
on  last  year  by  the  committee.  He  was  a  clerk  next  in  rank  to  the  chief 
clerk.     I  do  not  recollect  his  particular  duties. 

Ques.  16.  When  was  the  mail  steamboat  line  established  from  Washing- 
ton to  Potomac  creek? 

Ans.  16.     I  think  1st  January,  1824. 

Ques.  17.     Have  you  been  concerned  in  that  contract  since  that  time? 

Ans.  17.  I  have;  and  have  been  concerned  in  the  New  Orleans  contract, 
and  divers  others.  I  had  an  interest  in  the  Baltimore  route,  which  com- 
menced more  than  ten  years  ago;  the  others  begun  about  five  years  ago. 

Ques.  18.  What  amount  did  you  understand  Dr.  P.  Bradley  to  have  had 
in  the  contract  referred  to? 

Ans.  18.  He  had,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  about  one-eighteenth — ' 
something  like  one  hundred  dollars.  This  was  during  Mr.  Granger's  ad- 
ministration, and  he  divested  himself  of  it  in  Mr.  Meigs's  time. 

WILLIAM  A.  BRADLEY. 

December  27,  1834. 


[Doc.  No.  134.] 

Washington  City,  September  2^,  1831. 
I  will  convey  the  mail,  agreeably  to  advertisement,  on  route  No.  951, 
from  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of  six 
thousand  dollars;  or  I  will  make  the  following  improvements  on  said  route, 
which  are  required  by  the  present  state  of  the  country:  I  will  convey  the 
mail  twice  a  day  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  during  the  running 
of  steamboats,  the  principal  mail  always  to  be  carried  through  from  post 
office  to  post  office,  both  ways,  in  thirteen  hours.  Leave  Philadelphia 
every  day  at  7  P.  M.,  and  arrive  at  New  York  next  day  at  8  A.  M. 

And  to  return  from  New  York  in  the  same  time.  And  on  condition  that 
this  bid  shall  be  accepted,  I  also  bind  myself  to  give  such  increased  expe- 
dition to  the  mail  between  New  York  and  New  Haven  as  to  leave  New 
York  after  the  arrival  of  this  mail,  and  arrive  at  New  Haven  in  time  to 
Iceep  the  connexion  perfect  and  without  any  interruption  or  delay  to  Bos- 
ton, as  also  the  same  expedition  in  returning  from  New  Haven;  which 
improvement  will  require  several  additional  teams,  and  incur  an  expense  of 
at  least  four  thousand  dollars  per  annum.  This,  by  a  corresponding  im- 
provement between  Washington  city  and  Philadelphia,  which  is  perfectly 
feasible,  will  expedite  the  mail  one  whole  day  between  Washington  and 


i( 


349  [  86  3 

Boston,  and  prevent  many  failures,  by  causing  the  mail  to  cross  the  Hud- 
son at  all  times  by  daylight.  The  other  mail,  during  the  running  of  steam- 
boats, shall  leave'Nevv  York  and  Philadelphia  respectively  at  6  A.  M.,  and 
arrive  by  5  P.  M.  The  mail  shall  always  be  guarded  with  suitable  fire 
arms,  and  during  the  night  always  attended  with  double  guards,  at  my  own 
expense,  a  defence  rendered  necessary  by  the  importance  of  the  mail;  and 
whenever  government  expresses  shall  be  required,  I  will  convey  them  in 
the  shortest  time  practicable,  without  any  expense  to  the  department.  The 
v^rhole  service,  with  all  the  improvement^,  I  will  perform  for  the  annual 
compensation  of  nineteen  thousand  dollars.  And  further,  I  will  pledge 
myself,  at  all  times,  to  carry  the  mail  with  as  much  speed  as  man  and  horse 
■or  machinery  will  allow,  whether  on  the  railroad,  when  completed,  or  any 
part  of  it,  whether  by  steamboat  durinj:;  the  season,  or  in  four  horse  post 
coaches,  at  all  times  of  the  day  and  at  any  season  of  year;  always  using 
such  expedition  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Postmaster  General,  and  with 
the  same  rapidity  as  any  express  can  be  conveyed. 

JAS.  REESIDE. 

P.  S.    It  is  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  I  will  deliver  the  mail  at  the 

post  office,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  receive  it  at  the  post  office  in  the 

city  of  New  York,  and  convey|it  between  that  office  and  the  river,  and 

across  tlie  river;  but  that  the  department  will  defray  the  expense  of  barge 

and  oarsman,'  in  ferrying  it  across  the  river,  provided  that  service  shall  be 

performed  under  such  arrangements  only  as  the  department  shall  sanction. 

It  is  also  distinctly  understood,  that  the  mail  shall  at  all  times,  both  winter 

'  and  summer,  run  through  both  ways,  from  office  to  office,  in  thirteen  hours; 

and  that  whenever  the  Postmaster  General  shall  alter  the  times  of  arrival 

and  departure,  the  same  expedition  shall  be  kept  up  without  any  increase  of 

'■  ^expense  to  the  department. 

^Q  the  Hpn.  William  T.  Barry, 

aK-iu.*, .;  Post7naster  General. 

VVashingtox  CiTr,  September  26,  1831. 
I  will  also  convey  the  United  States  mail  on  route  No.  969,  from  New 
Brunswick,  by  Bond  Brook,  Somerville,  North  Branch,  White  Horse,  Le- 
banon, Clinton,  Perryville,  Bloomsburgh,  and  Stillwater,  to  Easton,  daily 
and  back,  in  splendid  red  Troy  coaches,  with  first  rate  teams  of  horses. 
Leave  New  Brunswick  after  the  arrival  of  the  morning  steamboat  from 
New  York,  and  arrive  at  Easton  same  day  by  6  P.  M. ;  leave  Easton  every 
day  at  6  o'clock  A.  M.,  and  arrive  in  New  Brunswick  in  time  for  the 
afternoon  boats  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  for  the  yearly  compensa- 
tion of  twelve  hundred  dollars.  I  will  further  agree  to  continue  on  the 
mail  from  New  Brunswick  to  New  York  and  back  daily,  Sunday  ex- 
cepted, by  steamboat,  for  the  additional  compensation  of  three  hundred 
dollars;  making  the  whole  amount  fifteen  hundred  dollars.  This  will  form 
a  daily  line  from  New  Brunswick  to  Easton  and  back,  and  six  times  a  week 
Irom  New  York  to  Easton  and  back. 

JAS.  REESIDE. 

December  5,  1834. 
I  certify  that  the  above  is  truly  copied  from  the  original  on  file  in  the 
General  Post  Office. 

MW.  ST.  CLAIR  CLARKE,  Secretary, 


15    \K-    'f  k 

APPENDIX. 


[No.  L] 

Washington  City,  September  26, 183\. 

I  will  convey  the  mail  on  route  No.  1,388,  from  Baltimore  to  Chambers- 
burg,  agreeably  to  advertisement,  for  the  yearly  compensation  of  nineteen 
hundred  dollars. 

Or  I  will  make  the  following  improvements:  Leave  Baltimore,  daily,  after 
the  arrival  of  the  steamboat  from  Philadelphia,  during  the  running  season  of 
the  steamboats,  and  to  arrive  at  Chambersburg  at  6  o'clock  P.  M.,  and  con- 
tinue to  Pittsburg  in  two  days  from  Baltimore,  changing  at  all  the  way 
offices  on  the  route;  and  during  the  season  the  steamboats  do  not  run,  I  will 
convey  the  mail  from  Baltimore  to  Pittsburg,  by  way  of  Chambersburg,  in 
three  days,  changing  the  mails  at  all  the  way  offices,  for  the  yearly  compen- 
sation of  three  thousand  four  hundred  and  ninety-five  dollars. 

JAMES  REESIDE. 

I  also  will  have  the  mail  at  all  times  guarded  with  fire  arms,  on  all  nigh^ 
routes,  at  my  own  expense. 

JAMES  REESIDE. 


Washington  City,  September  26,  1831. 
Dear  Sir:  You  will  perceive  by  the  enclosed  proposals,  that  the  maii 
„will  be  conveyed  from  New  York  via  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburg,  in  the  short 
lime  of  two  days  and  twelve  hours;  from  New  York  to  Wheeling,  in  four 
days;  and  we  submit  the  propositions  we  have  made  to  you  for  mature  de- 
liberation, and  hope  that  you  will  patronize  our  effiDrts  in  endeavoring  to 
«erve  with  satisfaction  the  travelling  part  of  the  community,  and  more  par- 
ticularly so  as  it  is  our  earnest  desire  to  contribute  to  the  honor  and  glori/ 
•f  thfe  department. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 
JAMES  REESIDE, 
SAMUEL  R.  SLAYMAKERy 
J.  TOMLINSON. 
To  the  Hon.  Wm.  T.  Barry, 

Postmaster  General. 


[No.  2.] 

Washington,  Nove^nber  2S,  1834. 
Eben  L.  Childs,  being  first  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 
~     interrogatories  propounded: 

Question  1.  In  the  printed  pamphlet  exhibiting  extra  allowances  and  cur- 
tailments, page  249,  there  is  the  following  entry:  "1031,  Philadelphia  to 
Pittsburg;  James  Reeside,  the  express  mail,  3,150  dollars;  which  purports 
to  be  a  curtailment  yearly  to  that  amount.'*     If  you  can,  explain  that  entry. 


351  '    [86] 

t 

Answer  1.  I  was  directed  by  Major  Hobble  to  inform  Ihe  contractors  tha 
the  allowance  for  the  express  mail  between  Piiiladelphia  and  Lancaster  was 
withdrawn.  Supposing  that  it  had  been  an  allowance  on  the  route  1,031, 
I  entered  it  on  that  contract.'  I  afterwards  found  this  to  be  a  mistake,  and 
that  it  should  have  been  entered  on  route  1,093,  the  contract  of  Slay  maker 
and  Tomlinson,  and  then  made  the  entry  there;  erasing  the  former  entry. 
I  presume  the  correction  was  made  by  me  after  the  report  was  made  by  the 
Postmaster  General,  and  the  pamphlet  was  printed. 

E.  L.  CHILDS. 


[No.  3.] 

Post  Office  Department,  January  19,  1835; 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  the  third  clause  of  the  resolution  of  the  commit- 
tee, bearing  date  the  26th  ult.,  I  herewith  subjoin  a  copy  of  what  appears  on 
file  in  reference  to  the  establishment  of  the  express  mail  from  Philadelphia 
to  New  York. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be. 

Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

W.  T.  BARRY. 
Honorable  Felix  Grundy, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post  Roads, 


December  30,  1831. 
Sir:  The  express  mail  ordered  by  you  to  run  between  Philadelphia  and 
New  York,  to  leave  Philadelphia  at  9  a.  m.  and  arrive  at  New  York  by  9 
p.  M.,  and  leave  New  York  at  7  a.  m.,  arrive  at  Philadelphia  by  6  p.  m.,  I 
will  convey  for  one  half  the  sum  allowed  for  the  express  mail  from  Washing- 
ton city  to  Philadelphia,  via  Lancaster,  &c. 

Respectfully,  &c., 
(Signed)  JAMES  REESIDE. 

Honorable  W.  T^  Barry. 
(Endorsed—"  Allowed.") 


[No.  4.] 

November  8,  1834. 
S.  L.  Gouverneur,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  several  answers  to  the  re- 
spective interrogatories,  as  follow: 

Question  1.  Was  there  ever  a  check  for  ten  thousand  dollars,  numbered 
8211,  drawn  on  the  Manhattan  Bank  by  the  Post  Office  Department,  or  by 
any  person  for  its  benefit,  in  favor  of  13arnabas  Bates,  received  by  you  and 
applied  to  payments  of  the  Post  Office  Department?  If  so,  was  James  Ree- 
side  in" any  way  connected  with  the  transaction?  and  if  he  was,  state  in 
what  way  and  how  this  sum  was  applied  by  you.  j 

Answer  1,  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  such  transaction;  not  the  least.! 
Question  2.    Were  there  any  checks,  dated  24th  May,  1834 — say  NoJ 


[86] 


352 


1959,  on  the  Bank  of  Ithica  for  1,200  dollars;  No.  1960,  on  the  Western 
Bank  of  Philadelphia  for  1,000  dollars;  No.  1961,  on  Concord,  New  Hamp- 
shire, for  1,500  dollars;  No.  1962,  on  Boston,  Massachusetts,  lor  1,300  dol- 
lars— delivered  to  you  by  Mr.  Bates,  and  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  depart- 
ment? If  so,  in  whose  favor  were  they  drawn,  and  how  were  they  applied 
by  you? 

Answer  2.  I  have  no  particular  recollection  of  these  checks.  If  any  of 
these  checks  came  into  my  hands,  they  would  have  been  put  into  either  the 
Manhattan  Bank  or  Seventh  Ward  Bank. 

Question  3.  Have  you  not  frequently  received  from  Mr.  Bates  checks 
and  money  to  be  applied  to  the  use  of  the  deparlment,  according  to  their 
instructions  to  you? 

Answer  3.  Yes;  my  impression  is,  I  have  received  such  checks  and  mo- 
ney to  considerable  amounts.  I  did  with  them  as  I  was  instructed  by  the 
department.  They  were  transactions  of  the  moment,  and  1  have  no  distinct 
recollection  of  them. 

Question  4.  Do  you  recollect  to  have  received  and  disposed  of,  for  the 
use  of  the  department,  any  draft  or  check  on  which  the  name  of  James  Ree- 
side  appeared  as  a  party,  or  in  which  you  know  him  to  have  had  any  interest? 

Answer  4.  I  have  not  deceived  any  such  drafts,  as  I  recollect. 

SAMUEL  L.  GOUVERNEUR. 


[No.  5.] 


6 

c  .:=! 

m 

O    oo 

CJ 

o    • 

ri 

t^ 

c 

03 

D 

JNo.  2211 


Bank  of  the  Manhattan  Company, 
Office  at  New  York,  N.  Y., 

Pay  B.Bates 

ten  thousand : 


Post  Office  Department, 

Washington,  July  31st,  1834. 


-or  order 


-^^^  dollars. 


0.  B.  Brown,  Treasurer  of  P.  0.  Dep't. 


S10,000  00 


Correct: 

S.  R.  Hobbie,  Assistant  P.  M.  General. 
Endorsed,  B.  Bates. 


November  lOth,  1834. 

The  above  is  a  copy  of  an  original  check  supposed  to  have  been  deposited 
to  the  credit  of  B.  Bates,  in  account  with  the  Manhattan  Company,  on  the 
2d  day  of  August,  1834,  his  account  having  been  credited  with  a  similar 
sum  on  that  day,  and  debited  with  a  like  amount,  say  ten  thousand  dollars, 
on  the  4th  of  the  same  month. 

ROBERT  WHITE,  Cashier. 


S53  [  86  ] 

[No.  6.] 

Philadelphia,  Aovfimicr  13, 1834. 

Levi  Knowles,  jr.,  being  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  loathe 
respective  interrogatories,  as  follow,  viz.: 

Question  1.  Do  you  know  of  a  deposite  made  by  James  Reeside,  in  the 
Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  20th  day  of  September,  1834,  to  the 
credit  of  the  General  Post  O.'iice,  amounting  to  ^9,843  30?  If  so,  state  all 
the  circumstances  attending  it. 

Answer  1.  I  do.  About  noon,  Mr.  Reeside  came  in  with  a  lot  of  bank 
notes,  which  I  would  not  receive  from  him,  there  was  so  much  country 
money  in  it — Pittsburg  and  other  notes.  He  went  over  to  the  cashier,  who 
agreed  to  receive  them,  and  I  then  took  them  and  gave  him  duplicate  receipts. 
He  said  he  had  been  travelling  and  collecting  money  for  the  department. 
He  spoke  of  that  money  as  having  been  collected  for  the  department.  There 
were,  I  think,  four  or  five  one  thousand  dollar  notes  of  this  city;  the  rest 
were  small  notes. 

LEVI  KNOWLES,  Jr. 

•      [No.  7.] 
John  F.  Boone — sworn  27th  September,  1S34: 

Question.  Did  you  keep  the  middle  journal,  and  leger,  and  day  book, 
of  the  General  Post  Office,  for  some  years  past? 

Answer.  I  have  kept  the  journal  and  leger,  but  not  the  day  book,  from 
the  year  1829  until  the  1st  of  April,  1833,  at  which  time  I  gave  up  the 
journal  and  leger  of  what  is  properly  called  the  middle  States,  and  from 
that  time  to  the  present  I  kept  the  journal  and  leger  for  Ohio,  Kentucky, 
and  some  other  western  States. 

Question.  From  what  did  you  take  the  entries  of  a  credit  to  James  Ree- 
side. made  in  the  middle  journal  of  j^6,000,  dated  1st  Jan.   1833,  page  343? 

Answer.     I  took  them  from  the  pay  list  of  the  middle  section. 

Question.  From  what  did  you  take  the  entries  of  further  credit, to  James 
Reeside,  of  gl3,000,  ^1,500,  and  §3,150? 

Answer.     They  are  all  taken  from  the  same  pay  list 

Question.  From  what  did  you  take  the  further  entries  of  credit  to  James 
Reeside,  of  $3,520,  and  g2,196? 

Answer.     They  were  taken  from  the  entries  of  the  middle  day  book. 

JOHN  F.  BOONE. 


[No.  8.] 

BENNET  A.    WHITE.  , 

Question  1,     Is  the  account  of  James  Reeside  furnished  to  the  commit- 
tee and  marked  A,  in  your  handwriting? 

Answer  1.  Yes. 

Question  2.     From  what  books  did  you  make  up  said  account? 

Answer  2.     From  the  middle  journal  and  middle  leger,  and  eastern  and 
•outhern  journals. 
45 


,[«6]  354. 

Question  3.  When,  and  under  what  date,  do  you  first  find  the  entriei  of 
|6,000,  $13,000,  j5 1,500,  $3,150,  j53,520,  ^2, 196,  for  transportation  and 
extras  between  Pliiladelphia  and  New  York,  as  credited  in  said  account,  for 
the  quarter  ending  31st  December,  1832? 

Answer  3.  The  S6>000  entry  is  found,  for  the  first  time,  by  me  under 
date  of  1st  January,  1833,  in  the  middle  journal,  page  343. 

The  $13,000  is  found,  for  the  first  time,  under  same  date  and  on  th» 
fame  page.  '   / 

The  iiSl,500  the  same. 

The  ^3,150  the  same. 

The  ;g3,520  is  found,  for  the  first  time,  under  date  of  27th  February, 

1833,  in  the  same  journal,  page  356. 

The  ^2,196  is  found  in  the  same  journal,  page  360,  under  date  of  30th 
March,  1833. 

Question  4.  Where,  and  under  what  dates  do  you  first  find  the  entries 
of  Si, 000,  jS428  57,  $978  66,  gl,455  86,  $966  67,  $6,250,  $2,500, 
$13,680,  and  ^600  contained  in  the  additional  items  in  the  quarterly  ac- 
count ending  1st  April,  1834,-* 

Answer  4.  The  1,000  dollars  is  found  in  southern  journal  P,  No.  3, 
page  142,  under  date  of  1st  April,  1834. 

Tho  428  dollars  57  cents  in  same  journal,  page  157,  under  date  30th  June, 

1834,  omitted  to  be  entered  1st  April,  1834.* 

The  978  doUais  66  cents  in  journal  P,  No.  1,  page  230,  under  date  of 
30th  June,  1834. 

The  1,455  dollars  56  cents  same  journal  and  same  date. 

The  966  dollars  67  cents  do  do. 

The  6,250  dollars  do  do. 

The  2,500  dollars  do  do. 

The  13,680  dollars  do  do. 

The  600  dollars  is  entered  in  day  book  north  and  east  0,  under  date  of 
S3d  of  September,  1834. 

Question  5.  Where,  and  under  what  date  did  you  first  find  the  item  oi 
6,000  dollars,  credited  11th  October,  1833,  to  James  Reeside,  as  deposited 
in  Western  Bank  of  Philadelphia  on  30th  November,  1832? 

Answer  5.  In  cash  book  P,  page  110,  under  date  of  11th  October, 
1833. 

Question  6.  What  book  keepers  keep  the  journals,  cash  book,  and  day 
book  to  which  you  have  referred  for  the  several  items  stated  in  your  ^bove 
answers?  w  * 

Answer  6.  The  middle  journal  and  leger  and  day  book  are  under  charge 
of  Mr.  John  F.  Boone. 

The  north  and  eastern  journal  and  leger  are  under  charge  of  Mr.  James 
Wheeler,  formerly  of  Mr.  Baker  Dyer. 

The  south  and  west  journal  and  leger  are  under  charge  of  Mr.  Rd. 
Dement. 

B.  WHITE. 


[No.  9.] 

JOHN  suTER.  January  5,  1835. 

Question  1.     Did  you  make  the  entry  in  the  pay  list  which  reads  as  fo» 


355  .  .[86  ] 

lows,  in  James  Reeside's  account:  "  Bedford  to  Washington,  1st  January, 
1832,  S725;'*  and  if  so,  when  did  you  make  that  entry? 

Answer  1.     The  entry  was  made  in  March  or  April,  1832. 

Question  2.  Who  made  the  entry  in  the  journal,  page  298,  in  Reeside's 
Account,  as  follows:  <*  Bedford  to  Washington,  $752,  1st  July,  1832," 
daily  mail  from  2st  January,  1832,  to  1st  December,  1833,  jg966  67  more 
— one  month's  extra? 

Answer  2.  Mr.  Boon,  one  of  the  book  keepers  from  the  pay  list.  ,  A 
similar,  under  date  of  1st  October,  1832,  is  also  in  the  handwriting  of 
Mr.  Boone,  and  taken  from  the  same  list. 

Question  3.  From  what  voucher  did  you  make  out  your  pay  list  in 
March  or  April,  1832,  as  respects  Mr.  Reeside? 

Answer  3.  From  a  direction  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  0.  B.  Brown, 
as  follows:  "  Bedford  to  Washington,  §2,900;"  a  full  copy  of  whiph  paper 
is  as  follows: 

951,  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  19,000,  i;500,  *3,000=  -  $23,500 

1.197,  Mount  Pleasant  to  Stewartsville  -             -  .  -  275 

1.198,  Bedford  to  Washington  2,900,  2,900,  966=:  .  .  6^766 
1,231,  Hagerstown  to  McUonnellsburg  -  -  -  _  40 
1,388,  Baltimore  to  Chambersburg  -  .  .  .  3,495 
1,031,  Philadelphia  to  Pittsburgh  and  Wheeling  -  -  t27,000 
1,033,  Philadelphia  to  Easton  -  -  -  -  -  1,900 
Weaver's  transfer  for  two  years,  per  annum        -  -  -  3,000 


^65,976 


Philadelphia  to  Reading  undetermined. 
Philadelphia  to  Bethlehem,  &e.,  undetermined. 
Baltimore  via  Port  Deposite  undetermined. 

Question  4.  At  what  time  was  the  following  entry,  in  red  ink,  29th 
December,  1831.  The  contractor  was  "directed  to  carry  the  mail  daily," 
made  on  the  margin  of  the  contract.  No.  1,198,  and  in  whose  handwri- 
ting is  the  entry? 

Answer  4.   I  cannot  say  at  what  time,  nor  who  made  the  entry. 

Question  5.  At  what  time  did  Mr.  Brown  furnish  you  with  the  above 
memorandum? 

Answer  5.   It  must  have  been  in  March  or  April,  1832. 

Question  6.  For  what  purpose  was  that  memorandum  furnished  to  ypu 
by  Mr.  Brown? 

Answer  6.  It  was  given  to  me  before  the  contracts  were  executed,  to 
ihow  me  what  compensation  Mr.  Reeside  was  to  receive  on  his  contracts. 

Question  7.  Did  you  certify  what  was  due  to  Mr.  Reeside,  pursuant  to 
that  memorandum? 

Answer  7.  No.  It  was  rather  to  regulate  the  acceptances  of  Reeside's 
drafts  on  the  department. 

•  $3, 150.  t  $12,500  of  this  to  credit  of  S.  Slaymaker. 


[  86  ]  55G 

[No.  10.] 

November  17,  1834.' 

I 

ROBERT    HARPER. 

Question  1.   Were  you  at  Washington  in  the  fall  of  1831  at  the  time  of  , 
the  lettings;  and  did  you  hold  such  communication  with  the  officers  of  the 
department  and  contractors  as  to  know  how  the  business  was  done? 

Answer  1.  I  was  at  Washington  in  the  fall  of  1831  as  a  bidder  for  con- 
tracts in  the  State  of  Ohio  and  Territory  of  JNIichigan.  1  had  been  a  con-- 
tractor  from  1828,  and  had  been  often  in  the  office  for  my  own  account  and 
as  agent  for  others,  and  supposed  I  was  acquainted  with  the  routine  of  busi- 
ness in  the  office.  In  1831  a  company  was' formed,  composed  of  RufusS. 
Reed,  Isaac  Bird,  George  House,  of  Galiipolis,  Henry  J.  Reese,  John  P. 
Converse,  and  myself;  we  lodged  in  the  department  our  proposals  for  car- 
rying the  mails  on  the  principal  routes  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 

Question  2.  Are  any  of  those  mail  routes  carried  now  on  terms  less  fa- 
vorable than  the  terms  of  your  bids? 

Answer  2.  The  route  from  Lower  Sandusky  to  Detroit  we  bid  to  carry 
in  four  horse  post  coaches,  daily,  for  four  thousand  four  hundred  dollars  per 
annum.  I  was  a  third  owner  on  that  route  prior  to  that  time,  three  times  a 
W/Cek.  I  think  that  route  was  accepted  at  the  bid  of  a  Mr.  Hunt,  or  Mr. 
Hart,  at  three  times  a  week,  for  fifteen  or  eighteen  hundred  dollars  per  an- 
num. Some  few  days  after  the  letting  I  remained  in  Washington.  I  was 
told  by  the  chief  clerk,  Mr.  0.  B.  Brown,  that  I  could  have  the  route  at  my 
bid  of  four  thousand  four  hundred  dollars,  for  a  daily  route.  I  declined  the 
proposition,  reserving  to  myself  two  days  to  give  a  final  answer.  I  went 
to  Baltimore,  and  while  there  1  concluded  not  to  take  it,  but  advised  Mr. 
Converse  to  go  back  and  take  it.  Mr.  ,Converse  returned  to  Washington 
and  entered  into  a  contract,  1  think  in  his  own  name,  for  five  thousand  dol- 
lars for  a  daily  line.  The  contract  was  taken  for  the  benefit  of  Converse, 
Harper,  and  Reese.  Mr.  Converse  returned,  and  he,  Reese  and  myself, 
closed  our  contract  in  this  way:  they  bore  all  expenses  of  our  trip  across  the 
mountains,  and  I  released  all  interest  in  the  contract,  and  have  had  none 
since. 

Question  3.   Who  was  this  man  Hunt,  or  Hart;  was  he  a  responsible  man? 

Answer  3.  He  was  not  considered  a  responsible  man  in  1828;  but  an  un- 
derbidder — a  speculator.  I 

Question  4.  Was  Mr.  Converse  known  to  the  department  as  one  of  your 
company? 

Answer  4.   Yes;  our  bid  would  show  that. 

Question  5.  Is  there  any  other  contract  known  to  you  on  which  you  can 
give  information? 

Answer  5.  There  is  a  route  from  Wheeling  to  Ashtabula,  on  which  we 
bid  for  a  daily  mail  for  two  thousand  seven  hundred  or  two  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  fifty  dollars  at  that  time.  It  was  accepted  to  a  Mr.  Dorhman, 
of  Steubenville,  I  think,  for  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  dollars.  He  carried 
it  from  1st  January  to  June,  1832.  I  returned  to  Washington  in  January, 
1833,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  an  arrangement  to  run  that  route  with  the 
company  of  Reese  and  Converse,  knowing  that  Dorhman  could  not  continue 
at  the  price  he  had  bid  it  off  at.  I  did  not  effect  the  arrangement.  Mr. 
Converse  sometime  in  the  spring  returned.     Dorhman  was  in  Washington, 


357  L  86  3 

^nd  then  made  an  arrangement  to  take  oat  the  contract  in  the  names  of  Reese 
and  Roberts  for  the  benefit  of  Dorhman's  assignee,  (Mr.  Roberts,)  Watson, 
Van  Gorder,  and  Harman;  Harman  having  purchased  a  part  of  Dorhman's 
interest,  for  which  I  understood  they  were  to  receive  two  thousand  seven 
hundred  or  two  thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  the  amount  of  our 
original  bid;  and  this  arrangement  was  to  go  back  to  1st  January,  1832.  I 
suppose  about  one-quarter  of  Dorhman's  contract  had  run  when  Reese  and 
Roberts's  contract  was  made,  and  the  department  was  to  allow  at  the  rate 
of  our  bid  to  Dorhman,  as  I  understood. 

I  at  one  time,  as  agent  for  Reese  and  Converse,  offered  Dorhman  two 
hundred  dollars  for  his  acceptance  of  the  contract.  I  did  this  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  a  forfeiture  of  Dorhman's  contract,  and  obtaining  thereby 
the  contract  according  to  our  original  bid.  He  refused  to  take  it,  stating 
that  0.  B.  Brown  had  assured  him  he  should  have  three  thousand  dollars. 

There  is  one  other  route,  from  JVIeunt  Vernon  to  Cleveland,  w^hich  we 
proposed  to  carry  daily  at  a  sum  not  recollected;  I  think  it  was  eighteen 
hundred  or  two  thousand  dollars;  which  was  struck  off  to  the  Ohio  Stage 
Company,  and  to  be  carried  tri-weekly.  I  only  know  from  Mr.  Wm .  Neil,  of 
Columbus,  that  they  were  to  get  eighteen  hundred  dollars  for  it.  Also, 
another  route,  from  Mount  Vernon  by  Mansfield  to  Huron,  which  we 
wished  to  use  as  a  feeder  for  one  of  our  routes.  Another  from  Columbus 
to  Lower  Sandusky,  for  which  we  bid  daily.  It  was  struck  off  on  a  tri- 
weekly bid.  If  these  papers,  showing  our  original  bids,  cannot  be  found 
in  the  department,  I  can  furnish  a  copy  of  them. 

Question  6.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  a  contract  or  contracts  taken  by 
George  House  on  his  own  account,  and  the  circumstances  attending  the 
taking  of  them?  If  )ou  do,  state  all  you  know  particularly. 

Answer  6,  In  the  fall  of  1831,  Mr.  House  was  in  Washington  at  thejlet- 
tings,  and  had  bid  in  his  own  name  for  certain  routes,  which  were  accepted  by 
the  department  to  another  individual,  a  Mr.  Ross,  of  Ohio.  Some  three  or 
four  days  after  the  decision  was  made  I  was  in  company  with  Mr.  House  in 
the  department,  and  before  the  chief  clerk,  Mr.  Brown.  Mr.  House,  in  course 
of  the  conversation,  accused  Mr.  Brown  with  having  violated  every  guarantee 
which  he  had  made  to  him  in  relation  to  that  contract;  that  is,  that  it  should 
have  been  accepted  to  Mr.  House  on  some  one  of  his  improvements,  which 
he  had  offered  on  his,  Mr.  Brown's  suggestion.  To  which  Mr.  Brown 
said,  it  had  escaped  his  recollection,  but  he  would  go  before  the  Postmaster 
General  with  Mr.  House  and  wohW  see  what  could  be  done  for  him.  The 
next  day,  I  think,  some  arrangement  was  made,  and  Mr.  House  got  the 
contract.     I  have  no  further  information  except  what  Mr.  House  told  me. 

Question  7.  Do  you  know  of  any  route  on  which  the  mail  is  carried  on 
the  same  terms  as  it  was  accepted  at  the  lettings  in  the  fall  of  1831. 

Answer.  I  do  not  now  recollect  of  any  one. 

R.  HARPER. 


[  No.  11.  ] 

September  30,  1834. 
William  H.  Dundas,  a  clerk  in  the  department,  being  first  duly  sworn^ 
made  the  following  answers  to  the  several  interrogatories: 


t  86  ]  358 

Question  1.  Do  you  know  the  fact  that  this  letter,  marked  ,  dated 

January  19,  1S33,  was  elicited  from  Mr.  Savary  by  any  letter  written  t© 
him  by  any  officer  of  the  department,  or  any  person  employed  therein,  io 
induce  Mr.  Asahel  Savary  to  ask  for  an  additional  allowance  on  route  No. 
1,463? 

Answer  1.  Dr.  Temple,  then  a  clerk  in  the  department,  told  me  he  hadl 
written  to  Mr.  Savary,  finding  from  information  he  had  received  that  the 
route  was  a  much  more  expensive  one  than  he  had  supposed,  to  induce 
Savary  to  ask  for  an  increased  or  adequate  allowance  for  carrying  the  mail; 
and,  as  well  as  I  recollect,  offered  to  show  me  the  letter. 

Question  2.  Is  there  any  other  letter  from  Savary  containing  the  original 
bid,  or  in  any  way  relative  to  the  original  bid,  in  the  department  within 
jour  knowledge? 

Answer  2.  Not  within  my  knowledge. 

Question  3.  Was  or  was  not  the  original  bid  for  that  route  made  out  by 
Dr.  Temple,  or  by  his  instructions? 

Answer  3.  1  wrote  it  by  request  of  Dr.  Temple.  This  is  the  paper,  and 
has  heretofore  been  published  in  the  report  of  committee,  page  55.  Mr. 
Savary  had  been  an  old  contractor,  and  had  got  several  contracts  at  the 
previous  letting  in  the  same  fall.  Dr.  Temple  had  frequently  mentioned 
to  me  that  he  had  a  desire  to  go  to  the  west  to  establish  himself  in  some 
other  business;  and,  as  I  understood  Dr.  Temple,  there  v/as  a  probability  of 
his  joining  Mr.  Savary  in  his  mail  contracts.  Dr.  Temple  informed  me  he 
was  authorized  by  Mr.  Savary  to  make  any  proposition  for  him  which  he 
might  think  proper. 

It  is  very  customary  for  contractors,  when  they  leave  here,  believing 
that  there  will  be  failures  in  the  contracts,  to  say  that  they  will  take  the 
contract  at  their  own  bids,  and  frequently  at  less.  , 

Question  4.  Was  Mr.  Savary  here  in  the  fall  of  1832  at  the  general  let- 
tings,  and  did  he  then  brd  for  this  route? 

Answer  4.  Mr.  Savarj'  was  here  at  the  le) tings;  but  the  route  not  having 
been  advertised  did  not  bid  for  it,  as  far  as  I  knew. 

Question  5.  Did  you  know  before  the  leltings  that'this  route  had  not  been 
advertised? 

Answer  5.  i  knew  that  it  was  not.  Mr.  Brown  had  been  of  opinion 
that  the  route  was  established  from  Detroit  by  Saganaw  and  Mackanaw  to 
Green  Bay,  and  so  advertised  it.  It  appeared  on  a  subsequent  examination 
that  the  route  was  established  from  Chicago  to  Green  Bay.  The  first  I 
heard  of  it  was  about  the  time  they  were  deciding  on  the  bids. 

Question  6.  What  paper  had  you  and  Mr.  Brown  before  you  when  the 
advertisement  was  made? 

Answer  6.  Mr.  Brown  had  a  copy  of  a  bill.  I  do  not  know  whether  of 
the  House  or  Senate.  Whether  it  passed  or  not  I  do  not  know.  My  own 
impression  is  that  it  had  not;  that  impression,  however,  is  received  front 
what  Mr.  Brown  said  before  the  committee,  and  not  from  my  own  recollec- 
tion. I  only  wrote  what  was  dictated  by  Mr.  Brown,  and  had  no  part  !■ 
the  examination  or  arrangement  of  the  routes. 

Question  7.   Did  Mr.  Brown  say  any  thing  particularly  concerning  thif 
.route  at  the  time  you  assisted  him  in  making  out  the  advertisement? 

Answer  7.  Not  a  word. 

Question  8.  At  what  time  did  you  first  hear  Dr.  Temple  speak  ot  taking 
«  contract,  or  part  in  a  contract,  and  going  to  the  west? 


359  [86  ] 

Answer  8.  I  have  frequently,  for  some  months  before  the  letiings  in 
1S32,  heard  him  express  his  anxiety  to  go  to  the  west  to  engage  in  a  more 
active  life,  his  salary  in  the  department  not  being  sufficient  to  enable  him 
to  make  any  provision  for  his  family. 

About  the  time  the  contractors  came  on,  preparatory  to  the  lettings,  was 
the  first,  I  think,  of  his  mentioning  any  thing  about  becoming  interested 
in  a  contract. 

Question  9  Do  you  know  whether  he  was  in  the  habit  of  consulting 
Mr.  Brown  or  conversing  witlihim  on  the  subject  of  his  proposedremoval 
to  the  west,  and  his  contemplated  contract? 

Answer  9.  No,  I  do  not.  He  mentioned  to  me  himself,  that  he  coa- 
versed  with  Mr.  Brown  on  the  subject;  as  to  his  habit  I  do  not  know. 

Question  10.  About  what  time  did  he  inform  you  that  he  had  conversed 
with  Mr.  Brown  on  that  subject? 

Answer  10.  I  do  not  precisely  know;  but  it  was  some  time  before  the 
Doctor  left  the  department. 

Question  11.  Do  you  know  whether  the  letter  from  Dr.  Temple  to 
Savary,  which  elicited  the  letter  from  Savary  of  the  19th  January,  1833, 
was  written  on  consultation  with  Mr.  Brown,  or  at  his  suggestion? 

Answer  11.     1  do  not  know. 

Question  12.  Did  you  ever  hear  Mr.  Brown  say  any  tiling  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Dr.  Temple's  contract  prior  to  bis  removal  to  the  west? 

Answer  12.  1  heard  Mr.  Brown  and  Dr.  Temple  conversing  about  it- 
prior  to  Temple's  removal  to  the  west,  and  after  the  contract  had  been 
made. 

Question  13,  If  any  thing  ^was  said  at  that  conversation  material  to  the 
present  inquiry,  state  it. 

Answer  13.     I  have  no  recollection  of  anything. 

Question  14.  In  whose  handwriting  is  the  paper  in  red  ink,  dated  21st 
February,  1833,  on  which  the  extra  allowance  of  glOOO  is  entered? 

Answer  14.     In  the  handwriting  of  Dr.  Temple. 

Question  15.  Was  Asahal  Savary  in  Washington  at  the  date  of  that 
paper? 

Answer  15.  I  do  not  know  that  he  was  at  the  dale  of  that  paper ;  I 
think  he  was  here  sometime  in  the  winter  or  spring  of  1833. 

Question  IG.  I  see  on  the  margin  of  a  letter  from  Dr.  Temple  to  S.  R. 
Hobbie,  Assistant  Postmaster  General,  dated  at  Chicago,  3d  April,  1833, 
the  following  memorandum:  ''Please  ask  Mr.  Pundas  to  note  the  transfer 
of  the  route  from  Chicago  to  Green  Bay;  he  knows  the  date,  28th  February, 
1833.''  Had  that  transfer  been  noted  by  you  on  the  paper  shown  to  you 
prior  to  the  receipt  of  the  letter  containing  that  memorandum? 

Ansv/er  16.  I  did  not  note  the  transfer  at  all.  At  the  tinfie  oT  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  letter  above  referred  to,  I  was  not  in  charge  of  the  business  of 
that  section. 

Question  17.  Is  the  paper  here  presented,  being  the  counterpart  of  a 
contract  signed  by  Wm.  T.  Barry,  Postmaster  General,  but  not  signed  by 
Asahal  Savery,  the  proper  place  to  note  a  transfer? 

Answer  17.  It  may  be  the  place  to  note  transfers  between  contractors. 
I  ani  not  acquainted  with  their  practice. 

Question  18.  Is  this  noting  on  the  margin,  in  the  following  words,  "I 
have  transferred  this  route  to  Dr.  J.  T.  Temple,  from  the  1st  of  April 
or  commencement,  provided  the  Postmaster  General  shall  consent.    Asahcl 


[86] 


360 


Savary.   28th  February,  1833,  approved  by  the  Postmaster  General.    0.  B 
Brown,   Superintendent  of  Mail  Contracts'* — in  the  usual  form  of  noting 
transfers  of  contracts? 

Answer  18.   I  do  not  know,  as  between  contractors.^ 

Question  19.  In  whose  handwriting  are  the  words  of  the  aforegoing^ 
transfer? 

Answer  19.  The  transfer  is  the  handwriting  of  Dr.  Temple.  The  sig- 
aature  is  the  handwriting  of  A,  Savery,  as  I  believe,  being  acquainted  with 
his  signature.     The  approval  is  in  the  handwriting  of  0.  B.  Brown.         > 

Question  20.  Here  is  a  letter  dated  White  Pigeon,  Michigan,  January 
I9j  1833,  from  Asahel  Savery  to  the  Postmaster  General.  Is  the  body  of 
the  letter,  or  the  signature,  in  the  handwriting  of  said  Asahel  Savery? 

Answer  20.   I  do  not  believe  either  of  them  is  in  his  handwriting. 

Question  21,  Look  at  the  place  and  date  of  the  letter,  and  at  the  post- 
mark thereon,  and  see  if  the  date  and  place  are  not  the  same  handwriting^ 
with  the  post-mark. 

Answer  21.  They  appear  to  me  to  be  the  same. 

Question  22.  Is  the  direction  of  the  letter  in  the  same  handwriting? 

Answer  22.  1  think  not.     It  appears  to  be  better. 

Question  23.  When  did  Dr.  Temple  cease  to  be  a  clerk  in  the  depart- 
ment? 

Answer  23.  From  information,  he  ceased  to  be  a  clerk  about  the  last  of 
March,  1833. 

Question  24.  Had  either  the  Postmaster  General  or  Mr.  Brown  any 
knowledge  of  the  letter  written  by  Temple  to  Savery,  of  which  you  have 
spoken,  and  which  was  written  prior  to  the  19th  January,  1833,  either  be- 
fore or  after  the  same  was  written? 

Answer  24.   Not  within  ray  knowledge.  * 

Question  25.  Have  you  any  information  from  any  source  whatever  which 
warrants  a  belief  that  this  letter  was  not  written  by  Savery,  and  mailed  at 
White  Pigeon?  if  you  have,  state  it. 

Answer  25.  1  have  no  information  on  the  subject.  I  believe,  from  its 
being  regularly  mailed,  that  it  was  written  by  his  direction. 

Question  26.  How  do  you  know  that  it  was  regularly  mailed? 

Answer  26.  I  only  say  so  from  its  appearing  to  be  so  by  the  post  mark. 

Question  27.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  term  Idtings;  and  explain  the 
practice  which  prevails  at  that  time? 

Answer  27.  By  the  term  httings,  I  mean  the  proclamation  of  the  suc- 
cessful bidders.  The  practice  prior  to  the  proclamation,  and  after  the  bids 
arc  recorded,  is  to  carry  the  record  book  into  the  Postmaster  General's 
room,  when  one  commenced  the  decisions  on  the  bids  for  the  various 
routes  that  have  been  advertsed;  at  these  decisions  are  present,  the  Post- 
master General  and  his  assistants,  the  chief  clerk,  and  a  clerk. 

WM.  H.  DUNDAS. 

January  5,  1835.    , 

AVM.    DUNDAS. 

Question  1.  Being  shown  the  following  entry  on  the  margin  of  the  con- 
tract. No.  1198,  of  James  Reeside,  "29th  December,  1S3I,  the  contractor 
was  directed  to  carry  the  mail  daily,"  Whose  handwriting  is  that  entry? 
When  was  it  made,  and  by  whose  direcctions? 


361  ^  [  86  ] 

Answer  1.  The  handwriting,  is  mine;  it  was  made  on  that  day,  and  a  let- 
ter was  written  on  the  same  day,  as  appears  by  the  letter  book,  containing 
a  letter  of  that  date,  ordering  a  daily  mail  on  that  route.  I  wrote  the  let- 
ter by  directions  of  Mr.  Brown,  and  made  the  entry  on  the  margin  as  a 
matter  of  course.     The  letter  was  signed  by  the  Postmaster  General. 


[  No.  12.] 

Post  Office  Department,   October  2,  1S34. 

Sir:  In  compliance  with  a  call  from  the  committee,  I  have  the  honor  to 
enclose  a  statement  from  W,  G.  Eliot,  chief  examiner, 
And  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

W.  T.  BARRY. 
Hon.  Felix  Grundt, 

Chairma7%  of  the  Committee. 


Examiner's  Office,  October  2,  1834. 

The  office  of  Hawesville,  Kentucky,  reported  a  balance  due  the  Post 
Office  Department  for  the  quarter  commencing  1st  April,  1832,  and  ending 
1st  July,  1832,  of         -  -  -  -  -  -         $11  88 

From  1st  July  to  1st  October,  1832      -  -  -  -  11  39 

From  1st  October  to  31st  December,  1832         -  -  _  17  40 

From  1st  January  to  1st  April,  1833     -  .  -  -  16  19 


Total  for  one  year         -  -  .        gse  S6 

The  return  from  that  office  from  1st  April  to  1st  July,  1833,  exhibited  a 
balance  due  the  postmaster,  by  the  department,  of  $S1  59,  in  consequence 
of  his  delivering  from  his  office  5,066  free  letters  at  two  cents  each,  amount- 
ing to  SlOl  32. 

WM-  G    ELIOT, 

Chief  Examiner. 
Hon.  W.  T.  Barry, 

Postmaster  General. 


The  folloivini^  is  an  extract  from  the  transcript  account  of  mails  received 
from  Hawesville,  Kentucky,  quarter  ending  \st  July,  1833. 

"  Free  letters  received  and  delivered  to  Hon.  A.  G.  Hawes,  without  way 
bills,  this  quarter,  5,049." 

WM.  EDINGTON,  P.  M. 

46 


[  86  ]  362 

Statement  of  the  gross  amount  of  the  anmial  receipts  of  tlie  Post  Office 

at  New  York,  since  the  year  1S29;  and  also  of  the  amount  paid  over, 

in  each  year,  to  the  General  Post  office. 

From  the  1st  of  Jaiiuary,  1829,  to  1S30,  Gross  receipts      -       8153,956  39 

<'  "  <'  Paid  over  -  135,123  87 

From  the  1st  of  January,  1S30,  to  1831,  Gross  receipts      -         157,550  22 

«'  "  <'  Paid  over  -         137,993  30 

From  the  1st  of  January,  1S31.  to  1832,  Gross  receipts      -         174,252  03 

*<  "  "  Paid  over  -         153,182  46 

From  the  1st  of  January,  1832,  to  1833,  Gross  receipts      -         201,609  40 

<'  '<  "  Paid  over  -  178,304  49 

From  the  1st  of  January,  1833,  to  1834,  Gross  receipts      -         213,382   25 

<'  "  "  Paid  over  -  186,624  99 

SAMUEL  L.  GOUVERNEUR,  P.  M. 


[No.  13.] 

Lowell,  21th  October, 1S34. 

rharles  H.  Locke,  being  first  duly  sworn,  gave  the  following  answers  to  the 

resp*'clive  interrogatories,  as  follow; 

Question  1.  Are  you  a  resident  in  Lowell,  the  editor  of  a  newspaper 
called  the  Lowell  Journal;  and  have  you  had  one  or  more  conversations  with 
Nathaniel  Greene,  the  postmaster  at  Boston,  respecting  a  supply  of  paper 
from  the  Pepperell  paper  mill,  and  when?     Please  to  state  the  whole. 

Answer  1.  I  reside  in  Lowell,  am  the  editor  of  the  Lowell  Journal,  and 
have  been  so  since  February  10,  1834.  On  31st  March  last  1  saw  Nathaniel 
Greene.  He  asked  me  in  relation  to  the  paper  which  I  was  using  for  my 
newspaper,  and  told  me  he  was  returning  from  his  paper  mill  at  Pepperell; 
that  he  had  for  some  time  been  part  owner  of  that  mill,  but  had  not  seen  it 
before;  that  he  had  gone  up  then  to  see  some  new  machinery  at  the  mill, 
said  to  be  uncommonly  good,  and  to  make  paper  very  fast.  He  then  said 
they  were  making  large  quantities  of  paper  on  Government  contracts,  and 
he  could  furnish  me  with  paper  cheaper  than  what  1  was  now  using.  He 
examined  the  paper  I  was  then  using,  and  I  told  him  the  price.  I  told  him 
I  had  contracted  for  a  sufficient  supply  for  the  present,  but  that  when  I  was 
out  1  would  call  on  him.  He  mentioned  that  Mr.  Emmerson  was  doing  the 
business  at  Pepperell;  and,  as  1  understood  him,  a  Mr.  Burrell  was  to  be 
his  man  of  business  in  Boston. 

Subsequently,  say  about  two  months,  I  wrote  Mr.  Nathaniel  Greene  to 
know  on  what  terms  he  could  furnish  paper.  He  referred  me  to  Mr.  Em- 
merson as  being  nearer  my  residence,  and  equally  capable  of  making  a  con- 
tract. Soon  after  that  I  went  to  the  paper  mill  at  Pepperell.  I  had  con- 
siderable conversation  with  Mr.  Emmerson  about  the  price  and  quality  of 
paper,  but  concluded  no  contract.  Mr.  Emmerson  [showed]  me  paper  they 
were  then  making  and  had  made  for  Government,  particularly  some  such  as 
is  used  for  wrapping  paper  in  the  post  office,  which  he  said  was  of  a  superior 
quality.  I  cannot  remember  the  language  of  Mr.  Emmerson,  but  he  con- 
veyed the  idea  that  he  was  manufacturing  paper  for  the  Government,  and 
was  doing  a  profitable  business  at  it. 

Afterwards,  say  about  six  weeks  ago,  I  liad  a  conversation  with  Nathaniel 
Greene  in  Boaloa  on  the  subject  of  furnishing  me  with  paper.     Mr.  Greene 


363  C  86  ] 

said  he  could  do  nothing  in  it,  as  he  was  going  to  dissolve  partnership  with 
Mr.  Emmerson,  and  give  up  his  share  in  the  business.  He  said  he  would  sell 
his  share  in  the  mill,  or  let  it  to  Mr.  Emmerson.  He  said,  they  are  making 
a  fuss  about  my  owning  a  paper  mill  and  furnishing  paper  to  Government 
while  I  am  postmaster;  and  also  that  Mr.  Emmerson  was  not  a  man  of  busi- 
ness, and  not  to  be  relied  on  as  to  punctuality,  and  making  good  quality 
of  paper.  CHAS.   H.  LOCKE. 

[No.  14.] 

Lowell,  001.21,  1834. 

JOHN  G.  LOCKE. 

Question  1.  Have  you  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  And  Emmerson  on 
the  subject  of  his  paper  mill  at  Pepperell,  and  of  the  interest  which  Natha- 
niel Greene  had  in  it?     If  so,  please  state  all  about  it. 

Answer  1,  In  June,  1833,  I  happened  in  company  \vi\h  Mr.  Emmerson. 
He  was  a  stranger  to  me.  We  talked  on  different  subjects,  and  finally  we 
talked  about  paper,  in  consequence  of  his  stopping  to  take  some  on  the 
stage.  He  then  told  me  he  had  lately  dissolved  with  his  former  partner  in  the 
paper-making  business,  Mr.  Bullard;  and  Mr.  IJullard  had  sold  out  his  inter- 
est to  Mr.  Greene,  the  postmaster  at  Boston;  that  the  inducements  for  Mr. 
Greene  coming  into  the  partnership  was,  that  he  had  contracts  with  the  Go- 
vernment to  furnish  paper.     They  expected  to  have  a  large  quantity  to 

JOHN  G.  LOCKE, 


^ 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  393 

PROCEEDINGS  AND  DISCUSSIONS 

THE  FRENCH  CHAMBER  OF  DEPUTIES, 

On  the  subject  of  the  treaty  between  France  and  the  United  States,  ivhich 
ivas  signed  at  Paris  on  the  4th  of  July,  1831,  and  the  ratifications  of 
which  icere  exchanged  at  Washington  on  the  2d  of  February,  1832/ 
from  the  first  presentation  of  the  treaty,  on  the  6th  of  April,  1833,  to 
the  refusal  to  carry  it  into  effect,  on  the  2d  of  April,  1834. 

[Translated  from  the  Paris  Moniteur  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States.] 

[Tlie  reports  of  proceeding's  in  the  French  Legislature  are  occasionally  defective, 
from  the  circumstance  that  ti>ey  alv/a}s  appear  in  the  Moniteur  on  tlie  morning  after  the 
meeting-  in  which  they  took  place.  Several  passages  occurred  in  the  original  of  the  fol- 
lowing report,  which  the  translator  has  rendered  faithfully  in  English,  without  venturing  to 
give  his  own  opinion  as  to  tlieir  intended  meaning.] 


[The  Chamber  of  Deputies,  which  was  in  session  when  the  treaty  was  ratified,  (February 
2,  18,32,)  adjourned  on  the  21st  April  following.  It  was  again  opened  on  the  19tii  of  No- 
vember, 183'2.     The  first  proceedings  on  the  treaty  took  place  on  the  6th  of  April,  1833.] 

Saturday,  April  6,  1833. 

M.  HuMANN,  Minister  of  Finance. 

Gentlemen:  At  the  opening  of  this  session,  the  King  informed  you 
that  he  would  lay  before  you  the  treaty  between  France  and  the  United 
States  of  America,  signed  on  the  4th  of  July,  1831 .  We  are  now,  by  order 
of  his  Majesty,  about  to  do  so. 

The  object  and  the  result  of  this  treaty  have  been  to  put  an  end  to  the 
differences  which  liave  been  embarrassing  the  relations  between  France 
and  the  United  States.  For  more  than  twenty  years  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment has  been  demanding  indemnification  for  the  conftscations  of  American 
vessels  under  the  decrees  of  Berlin,  Milan,  and  Rambouillet,  and  also 
after  their  repeal.  It  likewise  claimed  remuneration  for  a  certain  num- 
ber of  vessels  burnt  at  sea  by  French  squadrons,  in  order  to  conceal 
their  movements  from  the  enemy. 

Without  relating  here  the  history  and  dispositions  of  the  decrees  of  Ber- 
lin, Milan,  and  Rambouillet,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  recall  to  mii>d  that  these 
acts,  however  rigoious  and  prejudicial  to  the  navigation  of  neutrals  they 
may  have  been,  were  only  issued  by  way  of  retaliation  for  the  orders  of 
the  British  Council.  It  was  also  as  reprisals  against  France  and  England, 
that  the  United  States  on  their  part  ordered  the  confiscation  of  all  French 
and  English  vessels  which  should  enter  their  ports,  and  of  all  productions 
of  either  country  which  should  he^  brought  to  America  in  vessels  of  any 
nation.  The  adoption  of  such  measures,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  totally 
changed  the  position  of  the  United  States  with  regard  to  the  complaints 
which  had  been  provoked  by  the  said  decrees ;  and  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, by  endeavoring  to  do  itself  justice,  surrendered  its  right  to  bo  in- 
demnified for  confiscations  n^ade  in  virtue  of  them. 

There  are,  however,  some  exceptions  which  equity  requires  should  be 
26 


31)1  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

made  :  and  while  it  was  clear  that  Fiance  was  not  obliged  to  satisfy  all 
the  claims  inged  in  behalf  of  American  commerce,  still  there  was  a  cer- 
tain number  which  could  not  injustice  be  refused.  Such  for  instance  as 
those  on  account  of — 

American  vessels  seized  and  confiscated  in  virtue  of  the  Berlin,  Milan, 
and  Rambouillt't  decrees,  before  the  owners  could  have  had  notice  of 
those  acts; 

American  vessels  condemned  after  the  repeal  of  those  acts,  on  tlie  1st 
o'i  November,  1810 ; 

American  vessels  burnt  at  sea  by  the  French  squadrons. 

The  Imperial  Government  had  itself  admitted  the  justice  of  the  princi- 
ples of  these  exceptions ;  and  a  negotiation  set  on  foot  some  time  before 
its  fall,  gave  reason  to  suppose  that  an  arrangement  was  about  to  be  con- 
cluded on  bases  analogous  to  that  on  which  the  Chamber  is  now  called  to 
deliberate. 

The  Government  of  tlie  Restoration,  after  having  long  repelled  the 
American  claims,  by  declining  to  be  responsible  for  the  acts  which  had 
occasioned  them,  had  at  length  given  up  that  ground.  Like  the  Imperial 
Government,  it  admitted  that  a  part  of  the  claims  were  well  founded,  and 
appeared  ready  to  accede  to  them,  provided  the  United  States  on  their 
part,  would  admit  some  just  demands  which  France  had  to  urge  against  them. 

In  addition  to  pecuniary  claims  of  several  kinds  preferred  by  French 
citizens  against  the  Federal  Governn^ent,  France  had  yet  to  obtain  satis- 
faction  with   regard   to  tlie  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession   of  Loui- 
siana, concluded  in  1803,  which  assured  to  our  vessels  foreA'er  the  treat- 
"  m€nt  of  the  most  favored  nations  in  the  ports  of  that  country'. 

The  treaty  concluded  at  Ghent,  in   1814,  between  England  and  the 

United  States,  placed  the  English  on  the  same  footing  with  the  Americans 

themselves,   as    to    duties    in   the  ports    of   the    Union.     The    French 

Government,  in  virtue  of  the  said  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession,  de- 

jtnanded  the   same  equality  for    our  vessels  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana; 

but  the  Cabinet  of  Washington  replied  that  the  treaty  did  not  admit   of 

such  an  interpretation,  and  moreover  contended  that,  as  the  constitution 

, pi  the  United  States  subjected  all  the  States  to  the  same  regulations,  it 

i  ivas  not  at  liberty  to  grant  to  our  navigation  advantages  in  the  ports  of 

Louisiana,  the  exclusive  nature  of  which  would  have  afforded  to  this  State 

in. particular  a  sort  of  monopoly  of  French  commerce. 

;  !j     The  United  States  Government,  although  it  ahvays  contested  the  prin- 

"ciple  of  our  demands,  at  length  offered  us,  by  way  of  accommodation,  an 

important  reduction  in  the  duty  on  importation  of  our  w  ines. 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  negotiation  when  the  revolution  of  July  in- 
'  terruptcd  it  ;  it  was  soon  resumed  under  the  influence  of  the  sympathies 
excited  anew  between  the  two  nations  by  this  great  and  memorable  event. 
.    The  principal  difftculty  was  in  the  amount  to  be  paid  by  France  to  the 
,  United  States,  which  v.as  estimated  by  the  latter  Government  at  no  less 
than  seventy-five  millions  of  francs. 
_,^.j'  In  a  word,  the  question  was  one  in  which  the  oldness  of  the  claims,  the 
differences  as  to  the  pretensions,  and  the  difliculty,  if  not  impossibility,  of 
arriving  at  a  precise  and  rigorous  valuation,  leave  no  other  means  of  effect- 
ing a  peaceable  termination  than  by  an  arrangement  or  simple  statement 
of  accounts  between  the  parties  interested. 

Political  considerations  had  great  weight  with  both  parties  in  the  nego- 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  395 

tiation,and  much  influence  in  bringing  about  the  result ;  each  being  strong- 
ly impressed  with  the  necessity  of  putting  an  end  to  discussions  which 
had  already  lasted  too  long,  and  the  existence  of  which  was  a  bar  to  the 
increase  of  reciprocal  relations. 

The  claims  of  the  American  merchants,  brought  forward  at  every  ses- 
sion of  Congress,  and  necessarily  alluded  to  in  the  annual  messages  of  the 
President  of  the  United.  States,  appear  to  have  become  rather  a  question 
of  great  political  importance,  than  one  of  mere  private  interests;  and  if  the 
Federal  Government  was  obliged  by  every  circumstance  to  urge  these  de- 
mands, the  French  Government  was  no  less  under  the  necessity  of  comply- 
ing with  them  as  far  as  justice  required,  particularly  as  the  United  States 
expressed  their  readiness  to  give  satisfaction  for  all  our  grievances. 

From  these  reciprocal  considerations,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  union 
which  they  gave  reason  to  anticipate,  the  treaty  of  July  4,  1831  was 
concluded;  it  was  ratified  at  Washington  on  the  2d  of  February,  1832. 
By  it  the  amount  of  the  American  claims,  reduced  to  one-third  of  that 
iirst  demanded,  is  hxed  at  25,000,000  francs,  of  which  1,500,000  francs 
are  to  be  retained  for  the  payment  of  the  claims  which  French  citizens 
may  have  upon  the  Federal  Government.  On  the  other  hand,  the  United 
States,  in  compensation  for  the  advantages  which  the  8th  article  of  the 
treaty  of  1803  provided  for  our  navigation  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana, 
have  agreed  to  make  a  tariff  of  duties  on  French  wines,  of  a  nature  so 
•favorable,  that  for  the  ten  years  after  the  2d  of  February,  1832,  they 
will  be  admitted  into  the  ports  of  the  Union  at  duties  lower  than  those 
imposed  on  all  other  foreign  wines. 

Finally,  by  an  assimilation,  which  is  to  the  interest  of  both  countries, 
lang  staple  American  cottons  are  subject  to  the  same  duties  in  France 
as  short  staple. 

These  arc  the  principal  stipulations  of  an  agreement  which  had  become 
indispensable;  an  agreement  which,  by  removing  out  of  the  way  of  our 
relations  with  the  United  States,  a  question  ever  irritating,  and  likely  to 
compromise  them  all,  will  give  place  to  sentiments  of  amity,  and  to  rela- 
tions of  sympathy  and  union,  which  arose  at  an  epoch  glorious  for  both 
countries,  and  which  so  many  causes  of  affinity  so  many  natural  reasons 
tend  to  strengthen.  This  treaty,  gentlemen,  it  is  true,  adds  another  item 
to  the  budget;  but  it  is  to  acquit  a  debt  which,  reduced  to  equitable 
terms,  cannot  be  disavowed  by  us,  which  good  faith  should  oblige  us  to 
accept,  and  the  settlement  of  which  was  required  by  the  exigencies  of 
true  policy.  But,  as  we  have  seen  before,  this  treaty  is  not  exclusively 
to  the  advantage  of  the  United  States;  the  engagements  taken  in  it  are 
reciprocal,  and  the  interests  of  our  commerce,  as  well  as  the  rights  of 
French  citizens,  to  whom  the  American  Government  is  in  debt,  are 
thereby  guarantied. 

Ever  since  the  latiiication  of  the  treaty,  on  the  2d  of  February,  1832, 
the  United  States  have  been  faithfully  complying  with  the  stipulations 
relative  to  the  reduction  of  duties  on  the  wines  of  France;  we,  on  our 
side,  have  begun  to  carry  it  into  effect,  by  establishing  an  entire  equality 
as  to  duties  between  tlie  long  and  short  staple  cottons  of  the  United 
States  in  our  ports.  The  financial  part  of  the  treaty  now  remains  to  be 
executed,  by  paying,  at  the  stated  terms,  of  which  the  first  falls  on  the 
second  day  of  next  month,  the  sums  stipulated  in  favor  of  the  American 
merchants  and  of  French  citizens,  to  whom  the  United  States  are  in- 


396  [   Doc.   No    2.   J 

debted.     To  this  cfl'ect,  we  haA'e  the  honor  of  submitting  to  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  Chamber  the  following  projet  de  loi : 

BILL. 

Art.  1.  In  order  to  carry  into  effect  the  treaty  between  France  and 
the  United  States,  signed  on  the  4th  of  July,  1831,  the  ratifications  of 
which  were  exchanged  at  Washington  on  the  2d  of  February,  1832, 
and  by  the  terms  of  which  the  sum  of  twenty-five  millions  of  francs 
are  to  be  paid  by  France,  in  six  annual  instalments,  with  interest  at  four 
per  cent,  on  the  amount  of  each  instalment  paid,  and  of  the  others  re- 
maining unpaid  ;  the  Minister  of  Finance  is  authorized  to  place  on  the 
budgets  of  each  year,  from  1833  to  1838  inclusive,  the  sums  necessary 
to  provide  for  the  payments  stipulated  by  the  2d  article  of  said  treaty. 

Akt.  2.  A  credit  is  therefore  opened  for  1833,  to  the  Minister  of  Fi- 
nance, for  the  sum  of  5,1G6,6G6  francs  66  centimes,  for  the  following 
purposes:  1.  Four  million  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  thousand  six 
hundred  and  sixty-six  francs  sixty-six  centimes  as  the  amount  of  the  first 
sixth,  due  on  the  2d  of  February,  1833.  2.  One  million  of  francs  as 
interest, due  at  the  same  time. 

Art.  3.  The  sum  of  1,500,000  francs,  which  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  has  engaged  to  pay  to  France,  to  exonerate  itself  from  the 
claims  of  French  citizens,  shall  be  set  down  as  received,  in  a  special  ar- 
ticle of  the  budget,  at  the  rate  of  250,000  francs  per  annum,  with  the 
interest  thereon,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  3d  and  4th  articles  of  the 
said  treaty;  a  credit  for  which  sum,  for  1833,  is  opened  to  the  Minister 
of  Finance,  for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  claims  of  French  citizens 
which  may  have  been  admitted. 

Copy  of  the  treaty  of  July  4,  1831,  between  France  and  the    United 

t^tates  of  Amej'ica. 

His  Majesty  the  King  of  the  French,  and  the  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca, animated  with  an  equal  desire  to  adjust  amicably,  and  in  a  manner 
conformable  to  equity,  as  well  as  to  the  relations  of  good  intelligence  and 
sincere  friendship  which  unite  the  two  countries,  the  reclamations  formed 
hj  the  respective  Governments,  have,  for  this  purpose,  named  for  their 
plenipotentiaries,  to  Avit,  his  Majesty  the  King  of  the  French,  Count 
Horace  Sebastiani,  Lieutenant  General  of  his  Armies,  his  Minister  Se- 
cretary of  State  for  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  &c.,  &c.,  and 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate,  William  C.  Rives,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  the  said  United  States  near  his  Majesty  the  King  of 
the  French,  who,  after  having  exchanged  their  full  powers,  found  in  good 
and  due  form, have  agreed  upon  the  following  articles: 

Art.  1.  The  French  Government,  in  order  to  liberate  itself  com- 
pletely from  all  the  reclamations  prelerred  against  it  by  citizens  of  the 
United  States  for  unlawful  seizures,  captures,  sequestrations,  confisca- 
tions, or  destructions  of  their  vessels,  cargoes,  or  other  property,  engages 
to  pay  a  sum  of  twenty-five  millions  of  francs  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  who  shall  distribute  it  among  those  entitled,  in  the  man- 
ner and  according  to  the  rules  Avhich  it  shall  determine. 

Art.  2.  The  sum  of  twenty-five  millions  of  francs,  above  stipulated, 
shall  be  paid,  at  Paris,  in  six  annual  instalment?,  of  four  million  one 
hundred  and  sixty-six  thousand  six  hundred  and  sixty-six  francs  sixty-six 


[  Doc.   No.   2.  ]  397 

centimes  each,  into  the  hands  of  such  person  or  persons  as  shall  be  au- 
thorized by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  receive  it. 

The  first  instalment  shall  be  paid  at  the  expiration  of  one  year  next 
following  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  convention,  and  the 
others  at  successive  intervals  of  a  year,  one  after  another,  till  the  whole 
shall  be  paid. 

To  the  amount  of  each  of  the  said  instalments  s^hall  be  added  interest 
at  four  per  cent,  thereupon,  as  upon  the  other  instalments  then  remaining 
unpaid :  the  said  interest  to  be  computed  from  tlie  day  of  the  exchange  of 
the  ratifications  of  the  present  convention. 

Art.  3.  The  Government  of  the  United  States,  on  its  part,  for  the 
purpose  of  being  liberated  completely  from  all  the  reclamations  presented 
by  France  on  behalf  of  its  citizens,  or  of  the  Royal  Treasury,  (either for 
ancient  supplies  or  accounts,  the  liquidation  of  which  had  been  reserved, 
or  for  unlawful  seizures,  captures,  detentions,  arrests,  or  destructions  of 
French  vessels,  cargoes,  or  other  property,)  engages  to  pay  to  the  Go- 
vernment of  his  Majest}-  (which  shall  make  distribution  of  the  same  in 
the  manner  and  according  to  the  rules  to  be  determined  by  it)  the  sura  of 
one  million  five  hundred  thousand  francs. 

Art.  4.  The  sum  of  one  million  five  hundred  thousand  fra^ics,  stipu- 
lated in  the  preceding  article,  shall  be  paid  in  six  annual  instalments  of 
two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  francs;  and  the  payment  of  each  of  the 
said  instalments  shall  be  effected  by  a  reservation  of  so  much  out  of  the 
annual  sums  which  the  French  Government  is  bound,  by  the  second  ar- 
ticle above,  to  pay  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

To  the  amount  of  each  of  these  instalments  shall  be  added  interest  at 
four  per  cent,  upon  the  instalment  then  paid,  as  well  as  upon  those  still 
due  ;  which  payments  of  interest  shall  be  effected  by  means  of  a  reser- 
vation similar  to  that  already  indicated  f\3r  the  payment  of  the  principal. 
The  said  interest  shall  be  computed  froiu  the  day  of  the  exchange  of  the 
ratifications  of  the  present  convention. 

Art.  5.  As  to  the  reclamations  of  the  French  citizens  against  the  Go- 
vernment of  the  United  States,  and  the  reclamations  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  against  the  French  Government,  which  are  of  a  different 
nature  from  those  which  it  is  the  ol)ject  of  the  present  convention  to  ad- 
just, it  is  understood  that  tlie  citizens  of  the  two  nations  may  prosecute 
them  in  the  respective  countries,  before  the  competent  judicial  or  admin- 
istrative authorities,' in  complying  with  the  laws  and  regulations  of  the 
country,  th«  dispositions  and  benefit  of  which  shall  be  applied  to  them  in 
like  manner  as  to  native  citizens. 

Art.  6.  The  French  Government  and  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  reciprocally  engage  to  communicate  to  each  other,  by  the  interme- 
diary of  the  respective  legations,  the  documents,  titles,  or  other  informa- 
tions proper  to  facilitate  the  examination  and  liquidation  of  the  reclama- 
tions comprised  in  the  stipulations  of  the  present  convention. 

Art.  7.  The  wines  of  France,  from  and  aftei*  the  exchange  of  the  rati- 
fications of  the  present  convention,  shall  be  admitted  to  consumption  in  the 
States  of  the  Union  at  duties  which  shall  not  exceed  the  following  rates 
by  the  gallon,  (such  as  it  is  used  at  present  for  wines  in  the  United  States,) 
to  wit,  six  cents  for  red  wines  in  casks ;  ten  cents  for  white  wines  in 
casks  ;  and  twenty-two  cents  for  wines  of  all  sorts  in  bottles.  The  pro- 
portion existing  between  the  dtities  on  French  wines  thus  reduced,  and 


398  [  Boc.  No.   2.  ] 


> 


the  general  rates  of  tariff  which  went  into  operation  the  1st  January, 
1829,  shall  be  maintained,  in  case  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
should  think  jHoper  to  diminish  those  general  rates  in  a  new  tariff. 

In  consideration  of  this  stipulation,  which  shall  be  binding  on  the 
United  States  for  ten  years,  the  French  Government  abandons  the  recla- 
mations which  it  had  formed  in  relation  to  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of 
cession  of  Louisiana.  It  engages,  moreover,  to  establish  on  the  long 
staple  cottons  of  the  United  States,  which,  after  the  exchange  of  the  ra- 
tifications of  the  present  convention,  shall  be  brought  directly  thence  to 
France  by  the  vessels  of  the  United  States,  or  by  French  vessels,  the 
same  duties  as  on  shoi't  staple  cottons. 

Art.  8.  The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified,  and  the  ratifications 
'  shall  be  exchanged  at  Washington,  in  the  space  of  eight  ^months,  or 
sooner,  if  possible. 

In  faith  of  which,  the  respective  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  these 
articles,  and  hereto  set  their  seals. 

Done  at  Paris,  the  fourth  day  of  the  month  of  July,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  thirty-one. 

The  ratifications  were  exchanged  at  Washington,  on  the  2d  February, 
1832. 

The  President  or  the  Chamber. 

The  bill  is  received  ;  it  will  be  presented  and  referred  to  the  Bureaux. 

[Tlie  session  of  the  French  Legislature  closed  on  the  25th  April, 
1833,  without  any  further  action  upon  the  subject.  The  next  session  be- 
gan on  the  succeeding  day.] 

Tuesday,  June  11,  1833. 

M.  HuMAXN,  Minister  of  Finance* 

Gentlemen  :  On  the  6th  of  April  last,  we  had  the  honor  to  submit  to 
you  a  bill  {projet  de  loi)  for  carrying  into  execution  the  financial  part  of 
the  treaty  between  France  and  the  United  States  signed  on  the  4th  of 
July,  1831.  The  bill  not  having  been  discussed  during  the  last  session, 
the  King  has  ordered  us  to  present  it  to  you  agahi,  it  being  the  duty  of 
his  Government  to  be  faithful  to  the  engagements  contracted  in  the 
name  of  France. 

We  have  nothing  to  add  to  the  general  considerations  presented  in  our 
first  exposition,  and  we  shall  therefore  merely  explain  in  a  few  w^ords,, 
the  alterations  made  in  the  bill. 

By  its  first  article,  the  Minister  of  Finance  was  to  be  authorized  to 
place  on  the  budgets  of  each  year  from  1833  to  1838  inclusive,  the  sum 
necessary  for  paying  the  annual  instalments,  as  by  the  terms  of  the 
treaty.  But,  as  the  budget  of  1832  has  been  voted  without  giving  any 
place  to  the  American  claim,  you  should,  if  you  admit  the  debt,  authorize 
the  payment  in  a  more  general  manner. 

The  second  article  refe'rred  to  the  sums  payable  in  1833,  on  account  of 
the  first  sixth  of  the  capital,  and  of  the  interest,  calculated  up  to  the  2d 
of  February  last.  Now,  as  the  law^  was  not  passed,  the  payment  of  the 
first  instalment  was  of  course  refused  when  it  became  due  ;  and  it  is  im- 
possible to  calculate  exactly  the  amount  of  interest  which  will  be  due  on 
the  day  of  payment :  in  this  point  also,  the  terms  of  the.bill  were  too  re- 
strictive.    We  have    suppressed  the  third  article  of  the  bill,  for  these 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  399  ' 

reasons  :  The  mode  prescribed  by  it  for  the  acquittal  of  the  sums  due  by 
the  United  States  to  French  citizens,  was  entirely  at  variance  with  the 
plan  hitherto  observed  in  such  settlements,  which  is  simply  to  place  the 
sums  apart  for  those  who  may  have  a  right  to  tliem.  How  would  it  have 
been  possible  to  submit  to  the  annual  vote  of  the  Chambers  that  which 
was  merely  deposited  with  the  King,  by  a  foreign  Government,  for  a  spe- 
cial purpose  ?  Kow  should  we  call  on  the  Chambers  to  vote  on  an  an- 
nual appropriation,  which  they  can  neither  increase  nor  diminish,  and 
which  is  intended  to  satisfy  an  obligation,  not  of  the  French,  but  of  the 
American  Treasury  ?  The  sums  which  tTie  United  States  may  pay  to 
French  citizens,  are  evidently  the  property  of  the  lawful  claimants  en- 
tirely, and  should  be  of  right  keptonly  for  their  use,  and  interest  allowed 
on  them  from  the  moment  of  their  payment.  Besides,  what  difficulties 
may  not  arise  from  the  delays  within  which  the  laws  of  the  Ihiances  limit 
the  application  of  credits  ?  Is  it  not  wrong  too  to  give  the  claimants  a 
right  to  call  directly  on  the  French  Treasury  ?  These  considerations  have 
induced  us  to  suppress  the  third  article,  in  order  to  effect  the  settlement 
in, the  usual  manner,  as  lately  adopted  with  regard  to  the  Tunisian  and 
Tripolitan  indemnifications. 

The  bill,  as  altered,  will  read  thus  : 

BILL. 

Art.  1.  In  order  to  carry  into  execution  the  treaty  between  France 
and  the  United  States,  signed  on  the  4t!i  of  July,  ISSi,  t!ic  ratifications  of 
which  were  exchanged  at  Washington  on  the  2(1  of  February,  1832,  and, 
by  the  terms  of  wliich  the  sum  of  25,000,000  francs  is  ti)  be  paid  by 
France,  in  six  annual  instalments,  wiili  interest  at  4  per  cent,  on  each 
instalment  paid,  and  on  all  tlie  others  remaining  due,  tlie  Minii-iter  of 
Finance  is  authorized  to  pay  the  sums  stipulated  in  t!;e  2d  article  of  said 
treaty,  as  they  become  due. 

Art.  2.  In  consequence,  a  credit  to  the  amount  of  tlie  sum  to  he  paid 
in  1833  is  opened  to  the  Minister  of  Finance,  viz.  1st.  For  4,166,666 
francs  66  centimes,  the  amount  of  tlie  Hrst  sixth,  due  on  the  2d  of  Februa- 
ry, 1833,;  and  2d.  The  stun  refpiisite  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  now 
due,  and  of  that  whicli  will  have  become  due  on  the  day  of  payjuent  of 
the  first  instalment. 

The  PiiEsiDEXT  of  the  Chamber. 

The  bill  presented  by  the  Minister  of  Finance  is  received:  it  will  be 
piinted,  and  referred  to  the  Bureaux. 

The  Chamber  is  aware  that  this  treaty  requires  the  most  serious  exam- 
ination. All  the  documents  whicli  prccceled  it,  and  the  reports  of  the 
several  commissions,  should  bo  investigated — those  which  were  unfavor- 
able to  its  dispositions,  as  well  as  those  recounnemliiig  them,  as  by  such 
comparison  alone  can  we  arrive  at  the  truth.  Nothing  now  can  be  dono 
but  lay  the  bill  on  tiie  table  :  t!ie  Bureaux  may  call  for  it  if  they  please. 

THURsr)AY,  Jane  13,  1833. 

General  Lafayette. 

Gentlemen  :  The  rapidity  with  which   our  labors  arc   now  conducted, 
and  feelings  of  duty,  oblige  me  to  make  some  observations  on  the  order  of 
the  day.     A  treaty  witli  rlie  United  States  was  proposed  and  presented  to 


400  [   Doc.  No.   2.   J 

you  by  the  King  in  liis  speech  at  the  coniniciiccinent  oi"  the  last  session.  I 
shall  make  no  observations  as  to  the  delays,  of  various  sorts,  Avhicli  have 
occuire;!,  and  shall  coiiiinc  myself  entirely  lu  what  was  the  other  day  sub- 
mitted by  the  Minister  of  Finance.  I  shall  not  enlarge  upon  the  senti- 
mejits  of  justice,  national  honor,  and  j)ro{)riety,  with  regard  to  a  nation 
which  alone  refused  to  unite  with  our  enemies  in  1814  and  1815;  I  may 
observe  ho\\evcr,  that  if  it  had  done  so,  its  claims  would  have  been  long 
since  settled,  just  as  those  of  the  other  hostile  Powers  were.  I  will  add, 
that  if  it  had  consciitcd  to  charge  a  third  Power,  England  for  example, 
%vith  this  affair,  it  would  have  been  adjusted  also.  But  the  United  States 
would  not  present  themselves  as  an  enemy  ;  they  chose  rather  to  wait 
until  tliey  could  come  foruaid  with  their  claims  in  a!j  amicable  manner. 

Nor  will  I  dwell  on  one  of  our  great  interests,  the  greatest  of  our  maii- 
time  interests — the  liberty  of  the  seas  ;  and  as  we  cannot  ])lace  much  confi- 
dence in  such  a  coalition  as  was  formed  during  the  American  war  between 
the  squadrons  of  Russia,  Spain,  Holland  and  France,  I  think  that  a  union 
of  our  navy  with  that  of  the  United  States  offers  the  only  chance,  under 
present  circumstances,  of  having  that  liberty  assured.  I  will  confine  my- 
self to  one  of  our  most  importatit  commercial  interests.  I  regret  that  our 
colleague,  M.  Fulchiron,  is  not  here,  as  he  could  rei)eat  the  calculations 
which  he  made  for  me  the  other  day.  Tlse  city  of  Lyons  alone  (I  w  ill  cite 
but  one  example)  carried  on  a  trade  with  tiie  United  States  to  the  value  of 
55,000,000.  Since  the  ti-eaty,  to  which  the  United  States  have  agi'eed,  was 
made,  this  trade  has  ai-isen  to  80,000,000,  and  will  be  100,000,000  by  the 
1st  of  next  January. 

I  could  also  recall  what  has  been  written  by  the  Chainber  of  Commerce 
of  Havre  to  one  of  our  colleagues  ;  I  could  speak  of  our  wine-growing 
districts  ;  but  I  w  ill  merely  make  one  observation,  which  is,  that  unless 
tlie  question  of  the  treaty  be  terminated  during  this  scssioji,  it  is  much  to 
be  feared  that  the  American  Congress,  when  it  meets  in  December  next, 
will  take  measure-  to  restore  tilings  to  the  state  in  which  they  were  pre- 
vious to  the  treaty,  in  consequciice  of  \\\t  neglect  of  the  subject  during  two 
of  our  sessions.  1  leave  you  to  judge  how  injurious  this  would  be  to  our 
commerce. 

After  these  short  observations,  and  under  the  idea  that  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Afiairs  would  sujjport  nic  in  what  I  have  said — and  lie  has  just 
told  me  that  he  would — I  shall  conclude  by  answering,  beforehand,  one  ob- 
jection which  maybe  raised.  It  will  be  said  that,  in  this  affair,  I  am  a  good 
American.  Gentlemen,  1  am  j)rou;l  of  tiiat  title  ;  it  is  dear  to  my  heart; 
but  1  think  no  one  will  say  I  have  ever  been  other  than  a  good  Frenchman. 
1  therefoi-e  inove  that  tliis  qucslioii  be  placed  in  the  order  of  the  day  as 
.soon  as  possible,  in  order  that  you  may  take  it  up  before  the  end  of  the 
session  ;  and  my  recommendation,  if  I  may  use  the  term,  is,  that,  after  a 
proj)er  examination,  the  gi-eat  interests  which  I  have  cited  may  not  be 
forgotten. 

The  Pp.esidkxt. 

I  must  observe  to  General  Lafayette  that  there  will  be  a  meeting  of  the 
Bureaux  to-morr(»w,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  law  of  which  he 
speaks. 

M.  Odier. 

I  second  the  motion  of  Geiieral  Lafayette,  on  account  of  the  interests  of 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  401 

French  industry.  About  the  treaty  itself  I  say  jiothing  :  but  I  hope  the 
Chamber  will  take  it  up  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  report  on  the  bill  has 
been  presented. 

Tuesday,  June  18,  1833. 

M.  Be-Vjamiv  Delessert. 

Gentlemen  :  The  committee  charge;l  by  you  to  examine  the  bill  re- 
lative to  the  treaty  concluded  on  the  4th  of  July,  1831,  between  France 
and  the  United  States,  has  demanded  a  number  of  documents  and  repoi'ts, 
which  must  be  examined,  in  order  to  obtain  a  com})lete  knowledge  of  so  im- 
portant a  transaction. 

Tho  committee  was  soon  convinced  that  a  conscientious  examination  of 
these  papers  would  lequire  much  time:  and  that,  at  so  advanced  a  period 
of  the  session,  its  la!)ors  would  have  no  definitive  result.  It  regrets  that, 
from  motives  which  tlie  Government  only  can  ex])!ain,  the  bill  was  not  pre- 
sented eai'lier  to  tiic  Chamber  for  discussion.  It  regrets  this  the  more,,, 
as  it  is  convince(i  of  the  importance  of  a  treaty  which  essentially  interests 
our  rnai'itime  cotumerce,  our  agriculture,  and  our  juanufactures. 

Several  chambers  of  commeixe,  j)arlicularly  tliose  of  Paris  and  Lyons, 
have  manifested  an  ardent  desire  that  the  business  should  be  speedily 
terminated. 

Tiie  committee  would  be  satisfied  if,  after  a  deeper  study  of  the  question, 
it  could  enlighten  the  Chamber  with  regard  to  the  justice  of  the  claims  al- 
leged by  eacli  of  the  parties  to  the  treaty,  and  which  form  the  basis  of  it  ; 
but  as  time  does  not  allow  a  definitive  report  to  be  made  on  the  subject,  it 
considers  itselt'  as  the  organ  of  the  Chamber,  in  expressing  the  wish  that 
this  treaty  be  communicated  at  tiie  o])e!iing  of  the  next  session  ;  and  that 
its  result  may  be  such  as  to  strengthen  tiic  bonds  of  friendship  wiiich  must 
ever  exist  between  two  nations  so  long  united  by  common  interest  and 
sympathy. 

Geneuai.  L.vfayltte- 

Gentlemen  :  Tlie  committee  named  on  the  day  before  yesterday  con- 
ceived that  it  should  not  delay  for  a  single  instant  the  communication  you 
have  just  heard.  I  shall  not  my.self  enter  into  a  question  on  which  my 
opinion  and  sentiments  ai'e  well  known  to  you.  I  had  the  honor  to  repeat 
them  t!ie  other  day  to  the  Chamber;  it  will  however,  permit  me  to  pro- 
claim here  once  more  my  dcej)  personal  regret,  and  my  intimate  convic- 
tion, that  as  soon  as  the  Cliamber  is  enabled  to  do  what  dej)ends  on 
it,  iii  this  imj)ortant  and  urgent  affair,  it  will  acknowledge  as  fully  as  I  do, 
not  only  the  perfect  justice,  but  also  the  extensive  bearing  whicii  it  has  upon 
our  manufactures  and  oui-  policy. 

The  Mtnisteu  of  Forbigx  Affairs. 

Tiie  Govei'ument  has  already  expressed,  th.rough  me,  the  great  import- 
ance which  it  altaches  to  the  discussion  of  this  law.  It  has  twice  pre- 
sented it  CO  this  Chamber,  and  its  greatest  desire  was  to  have  had  it  de- 
bated during  (his  session.  The  i-eproach  cast  uj)on  us  of  having  presented 
the  treaty  too  late,  is,  I  think,  unmerited.  'J'he  Government  found  great 
difficulties  at  first;  it  had  reason  to  be  appi-ehensive  respecting  tlie  fate  of 
the  law,  and  endeavored  to  ovcicome  the  difficulties,  by  assembling  all  the 
documents  calculated  to  throw  light  upon  the  question. 


402  [  Doc.  No.   2.  ] 

It  did  not,  for  its  own  part,  need  any  of  these  documents  to  be  convinced 
that  the  treaty  was  good,  useful  and  just  ;  hut  al!  the  documents  had  been 
demanded,  and  it  was  necessary  to  obtain  some  from  America;  nor  are  all 
yet  collected,  which  are  calculated  to  throw  light  on  the  question.  The 
facts  occurred  twenty  years  ago,  and  much  trouble  was  required  to  collect 
the  papers  we  have  already;  and  tlie  motive  which  iiifitienced  the  Govern- 
ment in  delaying  the  presentation  of  the  treaty  was  precisely  its  desire 
to  give  the  Chamber  ample  information. 

Count  Jaubeiit. 

I  am  well  aware,  gentlemen,  of  the  caution  with  which  so  delicate  a  sub- 
ject should  be  handled  ;  particularly  as  it  is  a  treaty  concluded,  one  in  whicli 
the  word  of  the  French  Gavernment  is  engaged,  and  wanting  only  tiie  sanc- 
tion of  the  Chamber,  which  is  always  necessary  when  payments  are  to  be 
made.  Nevertheless,  I  should  be  sorry  if  the  session  should  end  under  the 
impression  likely  to  be  produced  by  the  report  you  have  heard,  and  the 
speech  of  our  honorable  colleague,  General  Lafayette. 

I  am  not  so  far  under  the  influence  of  sympathetic  feelings  as  that  hon- 
orable gentleman.  I  do  not  intend  to  enter  into  the  discussion,  but  I  think 
that  the  public  should  know,  and  the  United  States  should  not  be  ignorant, 
that  serious  objections  have  arisen  ag:-iinst  the  treaty  in  question — objec- 
tions which  render  a  minute  examination  necessary.  For  wo  are  not  dis- 
posed to  vote  away  such  an  enormous  sum  as  twenty-five  millions,  without 
examining  the  treaty  in  all  its  bearings.  We  should  be  abandoning  all 
the  rights  of  the  Chamber,  if  we  did  not  make  an  express  reservation  in 
this  case. 

Let  me  here  observe  that,  some  few  years  since,  under  the  Restoration,. 
a  negotiation  was  entered  into  on  the  subject ;  and  if  I  am  rightly  informed, 
instead  of  twenty-five  millions,  we  could  have  got  off  much  cheaper.. 
( Laughter.  J)  I  should  not  wish  to  have  it  thought  that  we  had  settled  the 
matter;  a  trs^aty  may  be  modified  with  the  consent  of  botli  parties;  and 
perhaps,  in  this  case,  it  may  be  proper  to  see  if  this  should  not  be  done. 
I  think  we  should  take  into  consideration  the  circumstance,  that  at  a  for- 
mer period  we  could  have  arranged  the  affair  with  the  United  States  on 
much  lower  terms.  It  would  be  singular  if  the  Government  of  July  should 
be  worse  treated  by  them,  than  that  of  the  Restoration  :  our  sympathy 
would  be  rather  burdensome  to  us. 

The  President. 

I  think  that  the  discussion  should  go  no  further,  as  we  cannot  now  enter 
into  the  merits  of  the  question.  The  right  of  the  Chamber  is  clearly  es- 
tablished ;  no  treaty  of  the  sort  now  presented  to  us  is  perfect,  or  can  be 
carried  into  execution  in  any  of  its  i)arts,  until  t!ie  Chamber  has  given  the 
Government  the  means  of  executing  it.  Nothing  can  be  considered  as  de- 
finitive which  is  subject  to  the  vote  of  the  Chamber.  The  foreigner,  wha 
enters  into  contract  with  our  Government,  knows  that  well  ;  for  every  one 
must  know  the  capacity  of  the  party  with  whom  he  enters  into  engage- 
ments ;  and  our  constitution  is  not  oidy  a  rule  for  ourselves,  but  also  serves 
to  warn  those  who  treat  with  us. 

This  principle  is  understood  by  all.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
acknowledges  that  the  vote  of  the  Chamber  ought  to  be  preceded  by  the 
presentation  of  every  document  which  can  inform  the  members  relative  to 
the  treaty,  as   he  is  occupied  in  obtaining  them,  and  engages  to  submit 


[  Doc.  No.   2.  ]  408 

them  to  the  Chamber  at  the  opening  of  its  next  session.     They  will  then 
be  examined  yvith  the  most  serious  attention. 

[J\'o  further  notice  was  taken  of  the  tieatij  during  this  session,  which 
ended  on  the  26th  of  June.  The  next  session  began  on  the  23d  of  Vecembet'-, 
1833.] 

Monday,  January  13,  1834. 

M.  HuMAX.v,  Minister  of  Finance. 

Gentlemen  :  We  last  year  had  the  honor  to  present  to  you  a  bili 
{projet  de  loi)  relative  to  the  execution  of  tiie  treaty  bctsveen  France  and 
the' United  States,  signed  on  the  4th  of  July,  1831.  The  labors  of  a 
double  session*  not  having  allowed  you  to  take  up  the  subject,  we  now 
again  submit  it  to  yon,  and  ask  your  sanction  to  the  arrangements  therein 
made.  We  consider  it  superfluous  to  repeat  the  exposition  of  the  facts  and 
considerations  which  have  led  to  the  convention  in  question  :  tliey  have 
already  been  laid  before  you,  with  all  the  explanations  calculated  to  de- 
monstrate the  necessity  as  well  as  the  propriety  of  an  act,  the  object  of 
which  was  to  put  an  end  to  diflerences  injurious  to  botii  countries,  and  em- 
barrassing their  political  and  commercial  relations. 

It  is  sutHcient  to  remind  you  that  it  imposes  a  new  charge  upon  France, 
which  is  not,  however,  w  ithout  compensation,  as,  independently  of  the  sum 
of  1,500,000  francs,  which  the  United  States  engages  to  pay  on  account 
of  the  claims  urged  by  France  in  behalf  of  its  citizens,  important  advan- 
tages have  been  secured  for  our  trade  in  wines,  which  are  to  enter  the 
United  States  at  reduced  duties  during  the  space  often  years.  You  will,, 
we  have  i-eason  to  liope,  see  that  as  our  commercial  iiiterests  and  the  rights 
of  French  citizens  to  whom  the  United  States  are  indebted,  are  thus  secur- 
ed by  this  convention,  the  Kitig's  Government  has  fairly  reconciled  the 
sacrifice  demanded  by  the  Treasury,  with  powerful  conside»'ations  of  equity 
and  policy.  It  is  however  the  duty  of  tiic  Minister  of  Foreign  Aft'airs 
to  give  the  Chamber  all  the  explanations  which  it  may  desire  on  the 
subject. 

The  object  of  the  bill  is  to  give  the  Minister  of  Finance  the  necessary 
powers  to  fulfil  the  engagements  contracted  in  the  name  of  France,  by  the 
treaty  of  July  4,  1834! 

BILL. 

Art.  1.  The  Minister  of  Finance  is  authorized  to  take  the  nc:essary 
measures  for  carrying  into  eftect  the  first  and  second  articles  of  the  treaty 
signed  on  the  4th  of  July,  1831,  between  the  King  of  the  French  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  tiic  ratifications  of  which  were  exchanged  at 
Washington  on  the  2d  of  February,  1832,  and  by  the  terms  of  which  the 
sum  of  twenty-five  millions  of  francs  is  to  be  paid  by  France. 

Art.  2.  The  Minister  of  Finance  shall  provide  for  the  execution  of  the 
dispositions  resulting  from  the  third  and  fourth  articles  of  the  said  treaty, 
by  which  the  Government  of  tlie  United  States  engages  to  pay  to  France 
one  million  five  hundred  thousand  francs,  in  order  to  free  itself  from  claims 
presented  in  behalf  of  Frencli  citizens  and  of  tlie  public  Treasury. 

The  receipts  upon  this  sum  of  one  million  five  hundred  thousand  francs,. 

•  The  Chambers  were  assembled  In  1833,  immediately  after  their  prorogation. 


404  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

and  the  employment  of  tlie  same,  shall  be  the  object  of  a  special  account  of 
receipts  and  exi)cnses  in  the  budgets  of  the  State. 

Done  at  I'aris,  at  the  palace  of  theTuillcries,  on  the  2d  day  of  January, 
1834.  LOUIS  PHILIPPE. 

By  the  King  :  Humann,  Minister  of  Finance. 

The  President  of  the  Chamber. 

The  bill  is  received,  and  ordered  to  be  printed ;  to  be  referred  to  the 
Bureaux.  ^ 

The  committee  charged  with  examining  the  bill  consisted  of  the  follow- 
ing nine  Deputies,  being  one  from  each  Bureau:  Count  Jaubert,  M.  Bes- 
siercs,  M.  Jay,  M.  Realier  Dumas,  M.  Berigny,  M.  Ganneron,  M.  Pisca- 
tory, Baron  Bignon,  and  M.  Odier. 

On  the  10th  of  March  M.  Jay  presented,  on  behalf  of  the  committee, 
the  following 

REPORT: 

Tlie  committee  charged  by  you  witli  examining  the  treaty  concluded  on 
the  4th  of  July,  1831,  between  France  and  tlie  United  States,  fully  compre- 
hended the  importance  of  the  objects  with  which  it  has  been  entrusted,  and 
proceeded  in  tisis  investigation  witli  that  conscientious  attention  and  me- 
thodical application  which  the  nature  of  its  duties  required.  Your  com- 
mittee has  conferred  witli  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  ;  it  has  ob- 
tained all  the  documents  calculated  to  enlighten  its  judgment,  which 
could  be  collected,  and  their  authenticity  and  exactness  were  determined 
by  two  of  its  members.  Finally,  it  has  taken  into  consideration  the  ne- 
gotiations relative  to  the  claims  of  the  United  States,  which  have  been 
suspended  and  recommenced  several  times  since  1812.  Tiiese  are  the 
elements  of  the  work  of  which  I  am  now,  in  the  name  of  your  committee, 
to  present  you  the  details  and  results. 

Before  entering  on  the  examination  of  the  treaty  of  1831,  we  have 
thought  proper  to  give  a  sketch  of  the  incidents  which  preceded  that  trans- 
action. The  facts  go  back  to  a  period  distant  in  point  of  time,  and  render- 
ed still  more  ancierit  by  the  multiplicity  and  the  greatness  of  events,  which 
seem  to  have  thrown  back  the  limits  of  ordinary  life  for  those  who  were 
theii-  contemporaries.  x\fter  a  simple  analysis,  w^e  shall  come  as  rapidly 
as  possible  to  the  priiicipal  questions  whicii  we  have  to  discuss  and  resolve. 

From  the  18th  of  Brumairc,  (Nov.  8,  1799,)  France  enjoyed  the  bene- 
fits of  a  regular  administration,  and  beyond  its  limits  victory  had  proved 
the  power  of  our  arms.  It  was  at  this  time  tiiat  the  First  Consul  resolved 
to  enforce  the  principle  of  fi-ee  navigation,  and  to  introduce  the  ordinary 
rules  of  national  right  into  the  maritime  code  of  nations.  This  idea,  at 
once  liberal,  grand,  and  politic,  was  applied  in  the  convention  signed  on  the 
8th  of  Brumaire,  in  the  year  9,  (October  30,  1800,)  between  France  and 
the  United  States;  the  right  of  blockade,  and  its  conditions,  the  right  of 
search,  and  its  regulations,  are  there  settled  in  a  maimer  conformable  with 
morality,  with  the  just  interests  of  the  belligerent  Pouers,  and  with  re- 
spect for  private  jiroperty.  The  treaty  is  only  indeed  a  summary  ex- 
position of  the  fundamental  princijde  that  •'  the  flag  covers  the  property  ;** 
a  principle  to  which  France  has  always  looked  in  her  treaties,  and  which, 
thanks  to  the  progress  of  general  civilization,  will  one  day  eflect  the  free- 
dom of  neutral  flags,  and  the  liberty  of  the  seas. 

One  only  difficulty  Avas  from  the  beginning  adverse  to  the  conclusion  of 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  405 

the  treaty  of  1800.  The  American  njinister  claimed  iiulemnification  for 
losses  sustained  by  several  citizens  of  the  United  States,  under  tlie  govern- 
ment of  the  Directory,  as  well  as  for  other  cases  of  legal  condemnation.  By 
the  second  and  fifth  articles  of  this  ti-eaty,  the  question  was  adjoui-ned  to 
a  more  convenient  time  ;  it  was  settled  by  a  convention  whirli  is  a  comple- 
ment to  the  treaty  of  cession  of  Louisiana  of  the  11th  Floreal,  year  Xf, 
(30th  April,  1803,)  and  which  was  signed  on  the  same  day.  The  amicable 
relations  which  had  subsisted  between  France  and  the  United  States  since 
the  convention  of  1800,  continued,  to  the  i-eciprocal  satisfaction  of  both 
nations',  up  to  the  moment  when  the  British  Govcriunent,  then  under  the 
influence  of  the  aristocratic  party,  took  advantage  ot  its  naval  superiority 
and  its  insular  position,  to  arrogate  to  itself  ti»e  exclusive  dominion  over 
the  seas.  Such  a  pretension,  followed  up  by  acts,  would  give  to  naval 
warfare  a  character  of  irritation  and  vengeance  hitherto  unknown.  The 
Emperor  Napoleon,  for  his  own  dcfciice,  was  forced  to  make  just  repri- 
sals, and  to  exercise  a  right  which  is  paramount  over  all  others — the  su- 
preme right  of  necessity. 

It  was  but  a  short  time  after  the  rupture  of  the  peace  of  Amiens  that 
England  first  introduced  tiiese  measures,  equally  repugnant  to  justice  and 
to  the  laws  of  nations.  A  first  order  in  coinicil,  of  June  24,  1803,  forbade 
the  indirect  commerce  of  neutrals  between  pai-ent  countries  and  their  colo- 
nics. This  system  received  a  still  greater  extension  by  other  orders  in 
council,  especially  by  those  of  the  9th  of  August,  1804,  of  the  8tli  of  April, 
and  of  the  16th  of  May,  180G,  which  declared  the  French  coasts  from 
Dieppe  to  Ostcnd,  and  from  the  Elbe  to  Brest,  in  a  state  of  blockade.  The 
evident  intention  of  tlic  British  ministry  was  to  deprive  France  of  all 
commercial  communication  witli  other  nations,  and  of  all  assistance  which 
it  might  otherwise  receive  in  time  of  scarcit}'.  Already,  in  1805,  had  an 
order  from  tiie  Cabinet  of  St.  James'  authorized  the  arrest  of  every  Ame- 
rican vessel  laden  with  goods  or  merchandise  not  the  product  of  the  United 
States.  The  Government  of  the  Union  passed  an  energetic  act  in  Decem- 
ber, 1805,  in  reply  to  these  hostile  proceedings  :  it  relaied  to  the  impress- 
ment of  seamen,  numbers  of  whom  had  been  carried  off,  although  under  the 
protection  of  the  United  States. 

*'This  act  of  the  American  Govei'nment,"  says  one  of  our  colleagues, 
in  a  distinguished  historical  work,  ''  [jleases  the  imagination  and  the  judg- 
ment, as  it  presents  an  instance  of  a  nation,  which,  notwithstanding  the 
extreme  inferiority  of  its  forces,  preserves  its  dignity  towards  a  jjowerful 
State." — {Bignon^s  Ilislonj  of  France.) 

Such  was  the  situation  of  England  with  regard  to  France  and  the  neu- 
tral Powers,  when  Napoleon,  whom  victory  had  le<l  to  Berlin,  conceived 
this  system  of  continental  blockade,  on  widch  jmlgments  so  various  have 
been  passed,  but  which  the  English  themselves  even  now  consider  to  have 
been  the  most  dangerous  blow  ever  struck  at  their  [>ower  and  commerce. 
From  this  period,  the  ad\ance  of  our  maiuifactures  may  be  dated.  The 
aim  of  the  Emperor  was  to  free  Euroj>e  from  its  sidijcction  to  the  industry 
of  England.  He  gave  the  isnpulse,  and  that  impulse  has  created  capitals, 
and  caused  certain  branches  of  tnanufacture  to, be  carried  to  such  a  degree 
of  perfection,  that  competition  being  no  longer  dieaded,  those  barriers 
which  prevent  I'eciprocal  interchange  among  nations,  and  which  carry  into 
a  period  of  entiie  peace  the  restrictive  combinations  adapted  to  a  state 
of  war,  may  now  be  removed. 


406  [  Boc.  No.  2.   I 

By  liic  decree  of  Beiliti,  the  Em])eror  declared  the  British  islands  in  a 
state  "'/ blockade  ;  all  Eiiglisli  proiliictioiis,  withont  exception,  were  good 
prize  :  and  no  vessel  coming  from  an  English  poit  could  be  received  in  a 
French  pnrt.  The  pride  of  Britain  was  wounded  by  this  act  of  retaliation, 
and  exiiibitcd  itself  in  the  order  in  council  of  November  11,  1807.  By 
this  order,  all  the  ports  of  France  and  its  allies  are  declared  to  be  blockaded ; 
all  communication  is  interdicted  to  neut^'als,  as  if  those  ports  were  effect- 
ively blockaded.  Finally,  articles,  the  produce  of  the  United  States  or 
the  colonies,  exported  to  Europe  by  America,  must  be  unloaded  in  Eng- 
land, and  subject  to  the  regulations  and  duties  of  re-exportation.  The  same 
measures  were  to  apjdy  to  all  vessels  of  other  neutral  Powers,  and  the 
English  cruisers  were  ordered  to  search  and  conduct  them  to  England. 

Tiie  Emperor  replied  to  these  acts  of  violence,  by  the  decrees  of  Milan 
of  the  23d  November  and  irth  December,  1807;  the  one  ordering  the 
seizure  and  confiscation  of  every  vessel  which,  after  having  touched  in  Eng- 
land, should  enter  a  port  of  France;  the  other  declaring  that  every  vessel 
uhich  should  pay  any  duty  whatever  to  the  British  Government,  should 
forfeit  its  national  character. 

In  examining  the  progress  of  this  new  maritime  code,  it  is  evident  that 
France  did  not  provoke  its  dispositions,  but  received  them  ready  made  from 
England.  The  strongest  proof  of  this  is  the  opinion  of  the  Emperor  him- 
self on  the  deciees,  as  expressed  in  his  message  communicating  to  the  Se- 
nate the  extraordinary  measures  he  had  adopted.  He  says:  *'lt  is  with 
great  pain  that  we  have  thus  made  the  interests  of  individuals  dependent 
upon  the  quarrels  of  Kings,  and  have  been  obliged  to  return,  after  so  many 
years  of  civilization,  /o  the  principles  which  characteri'xe  the  barbarism  of 
1the  earliest  ages.  But  we  have  been  constrained,  fi>r  the  good  of  our  peo- 
ple and  of  our  allies,  to  oppose  to  the  commonenemy  the  same  arms  which 
lie  wields  against  us.  Tliese  resolutions  are  the  result  of  a  just  sentiment 
of  recijirocity.  and  have  been  inspired  neither  by  passion  nor  by  hatred." 
Having  defined  the  charactci*  of  these  violent  legislative  proceedings,  we 
will  now  examine  their  efTects  on  the  United  States,  whose  flag,  at  that 
period,  covered  every  sea.  A  great  number  of  American  vessels  were 
seized  in  obedience  to  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  either  in  the  ports 
'  of  France,  or  in  jdaces  occupied  by  its  troops,  or  by  those  of  its  allies. 
''  Other  American  vessels  wci-e  also  seized  by  virtue  of  the  British  orders  in 
council  :  but  so  extensive  was  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  at  that 
■  period,  that  those  losses,  frequent  as  they  were,  were'  more  than  covered 
by  the  profits. 

The  Federal  Government  issued  a  resolution  on  the  22(1  of  December, 

1807,   the  object  of  which  v»as  to  preserve  Americans  from   the  conse- 

quences  of  these  measures  against  neutrals.     It  established  an  embargo  in 

all  the  ports  of  the  Union  ;  no  American  vessel  could  sail  for  any  foreign 

■   destination,  nor  even  go  from  one  j)ort  to  another  of  the  United  States, 

without  previously  giving  security  to  the  amount  of  double  the  value  of 

tlierself  and  cargo.     'Jhis  resolution,  which  may  be  regarded  not  as  an  act 

'of  hostility,  but  as  a  means  of  preservation,  did  not  answer  the  views  of 

^'  the  American   Government.      The  greater  part  of  tlie  American  captains 

remained  in  Europe,  and  became  the  commercial  agents  of  other  nations. 

Tliis  circumstance  made  tlie  French   Government  more  severe;  and  the 

decrees  of  Beilin  and  Milan  were  most  I'igidiy  enforced. 

Tl'.e  American  GovciTimciit,  on  its  part,  perceived  the  insufficiency  of  its 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  407 

embargo,  ami  replaced  it  by  the  non-intercourse  act,  apj)l}ing  only  to 
Englantl  and  France.  All  vessels  under  the  flag  of  either  of  those  nations 
were  forhi(hien  from  entering  the  waters  or  ports  of  ti»c  United  States,  from 
the  20th  of  May  following;  that  is  to  say,  from  the  eightieth  day  after 
its  passage,  every  vessel  violating  this  act  should  be  seized  and  con- 
demned :  no  product  of  the  soil  or  industry  of  France  or  England  conid 
be  introduced  into  the  United  States,  and  all  which  was  attempted  to  be  in- 
troduced was  to  be  seized  and  confiscated.  It  is  to  be  remarked,  to  the 
honor  of  tiie  United  States,  that  vessels  driven  in  by  storm  were  not  sub- 
ject to  the  consequences  set  f(>rth  in  the  act — an  exception  worthy  of  a  free 
people. 

The  non-intercourse  act  was  undoubtedly  a  legitimate  means  of  reprisal, 
but  it  must  equally  be  admitted  that  it  altered  the  position  of  the  United 
States,  and  cff-.^cted  their  neutrality.  Tl»e  misunderstanding  already  ex- 
Hsting  was  augmented  by  it;  and  it  brought  on  the  decree  of  llambouill^t 
of  Mai'ch  23,  18 10.  declaring  t!iat  every  vessel  under  the  flag  of  the  United 
States,  which  should,  after  the  20th  of  May,  1810,  enter  a  poit  of  France, 
or  its  colonies,  or  asiy  country  occupied  by  its  armies,  should  be  confis- 
cated, and  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  placed  in  the  sinking  fund,  [caisse 
d'amortissement.'j 

Anolher  decree,  of  August  5,  ISIO,  ordered  that  all  sums  existing  in  the 
said  fund  should  be  transferred, to  tlie  public  Treasury.  This  decree  con- 
ditionally revoked  those  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  which  ^>ere  to  cease  to  have 
effect  from  the  1st  of  the  following  November,  in  case  the  British  Go- 
vernment should  recall  its  orders  of  blockade,  and  those  subjecting  neu- 
tral vessels  to  its  regulations  ;  or  the  United  States  should  cause  their  in- 
dependence to  be  respected.  The  way  was  thus  ojjened  for  a  reconcilia- 
tion, and  we  shall  see  what  were  the  results. 

Here  ends  the  series  of  repressive  measures  between  France  and  tlie 
United  States.  It  was  socfn  observed  that  such  a  situation  was  injurious 
to  the  interests  of  both  parties;  and  the  necessity  of  an  understanding  be- 
came evident. 

The  United  States  iiad  declared  that  their  nan -intercourse  act  would 
cease  to  apply  to  the  nation  which  should  first  revoke  its  decrees  affecting 
tliemsclves.  The  French  Govei'nment  met  these  oveitures  favorably,  and 
informed  the  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  Uni.ed  States  that  the  de- 
crees of  Berlin  and  Milan  would,  after  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  be  re- 
garded as  if  they  had  never  existed  {comme  non-avenus)  with  respect  to 
Americans. 

The  Federal  Government,  on  being  informed  of  this  decision,  declared, 
by  a  proclamation  of  November  2,  1810,  that  the  non-intercourse  act  would 
cease  to  apply  to  Fi-ance  and  its  colonies  :  at  the  same  time  it  was  ordered 
that  the  act,  the  term  of  which  was  on  the  ])oint  of  expiring,  should  again 
be  enforced  from  the  10th  of  February,  1811,  if,  within  that  period,  the 
English  Government  should  not  also  have  revoked  its  orders. 

England  resolved  to  persist  in  this  system,  a!id  the  American  Congress 
again  ajiplied  its  non-inlercourse  net,  'J'his  i-esistance  to  the  orders  of  the 
British  coimcil  decided  the  Emperor  to  declare,  by  decree  of  28th  April, 
IS II,  that  the  prohibitive  deci-ees  were  definitively  revoked  with  regard  to 
the  Americans,  from  tl'.e  1st  of  November,  1810.  As  there  had  been  no 
war,  thei'c  \\  as  no  treaty  of  ])eace,  and  ainicable  relations  wci'C  renewed 
between  the  two  nations,  will>.out  any  positive  convention ;  a  most^xtra- 


408  [   Doc.  No.   2.  J 

ordinary  situation,  indeed,  and  one  of  which  history  offers  no  other  exani- 
ple.  To  he  sure,  at  tiiat  period,  every  thing  w  as  out  of  the  common  rules. 
The  struggle  between  France  and  England  had  become  so  violent,  so  much 
interwoven  witii  passion,  that  reconciliation  seemed  impossible.  Tiie 
complicated  diama,  of  which  Europe,  or  rather  the  whole  world,  was  the 
theatre,  could  only  be  cojicluded  by  one  of  those  acts  of  fate  which  strike 
Jiations  with  stupoi',  and  impose  upon  them  new  conditions  of  existence 
which  they  can  neither  accept  nor  refuse.  Destiny,  however,  had  not  yet 
pronounced  iisjiaf. 

The  first  care  of  the  American  Government  was  to  demand  indemnifi- 
cation for  the  seizures  which  it  insisted  had  been  illegally  made.  Mr. 
Barlow,  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States,  was  ordered  to  pre- 
sent and  urge  these  claims  on  the  Fiencli  Government;  but  the  military 
events  which  so  rapidly  succeeded,  lendered  his  negotiations  slow  ;  he, 
however,  obtained  favor  for  future  relations.  His  oiHcial  correspondence 
even  shows  that  he  consideied  himself  on  the  point  of  concluding  a  tt'eaty 
of  commerce.  He  went,  in  18'1£,  to  Wilna,  on  the  invitation  of  the  Duke 
ofBassano,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  with  the  hope  of  terminating  this 
arrangement;  all  was,  however,  frustrated  by  the  disasters  of  our  army, 
and  the  American  negotiator  himself  died  in  a  little  village  in  Poland, 
leaving  his  work  unfinished. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  an  analytical  examination  of  the  negotiations 
which  follow  ed  those  of  Mr.  Barlov/,  from  1812  to  the  conclusion  of  the 
treaty  of  1831. 

The  first  document  in  chronological  order  is  an  extract  from  a  report 
presented  to  the  Emperor  on  the  1  itii  of  Januaiy,  1814,  by  the  Duke  of 
Vicenza,  Minister  of  Foreign  AITairs.  The  minister  declared  that  no  in- 
demnification ought  to  be  granted  for  vessels  seized  in  virtue  of  the  Berlin 
and  Milan  decrees.  "  But,"  he  adds,  •<  these  observations  cannot  apply  to 
vessels  seized  since  the  1st  of  Noven'ibcr,  18iO,  at  which  time  these  decrees 
were  revoked  in  favor  of  the  Americans  ;  nor  to  tlje  vessels  against  which 
they  were  enforced,  ailiiougii  they  jsad  no  knowledge  of  tliem  before  their 
arrival  in  our  poits  :  nor  to  those  vessels  wiiicli  iiad  been  destroyed  at  sea 
by  vessels  of  the  State ;  nor,  finally,  to  those  seized  at  St.  Sebastian, 
which  tlicy  had  entered  under  the  persuasion  that  the  ports  of  Biscay  were 
open  to  them. 
,   The  indemnifications  amownted — 

For  the  first  class,  to    -  .  -  1,800,000  francs. 

For  the  second  ...  1,700,000 

For  the  tliird  -  -  -  £,200,000 

For  the  fourth  ...  7,300,000 


Total,     -  -  13.000,000 

<» These  estimates,"  says  the  minister,  <<  were  made  from  the  lists  of  the 
vessels  and  sales  furnished  by  the  Department  of  Commerce  ;  but  as  it  may- 
be admitted  that  the  prices  were  generally  below  the  real  value,  and  that 
these  lists  are  not  yet  complete,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  indemnifica- 
tion to  be  granted  will  surpass  this  sum,  and  may  be  stated  at  about 
eighteen  millions  of  francs." 

The  United  States  were  tlien  carrying  on  a  difficult  aiid  glorious  war 
with  Great  Britain,     Under  this  point  of  view,  Napoleon's  policy  had 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  '409 

been  effectual,  and  it  is  natural  to  iningiiic  that,  by  receiving  tlio  claims  of 
the  Auiei'icans  favorably,  he  wished,  at  tlie  same  tiine,  to  do  an  act  oi' 
justiro,  and  to  encourai^e  them  in  their  elforts.  But  he  had  not  tinie  :  i!ie 
hoiii"  was  come.  The  Empire,  rendei-ed  illustrious  to  the  h'>st  niomeut  hy 
genius  and  glory,  but  weakejied  by  the  general  desire  foriepose,and  esjvc- 
cially  by  the  absence  of  liberty,  tottered  and  fell  under  the  weiglit  of  all 
•Europe.  The  Restoi-ation  arose  mournfully  iij)on  these  vast  ruins  ;  and  a 
Jiew  ei-a  began  for  France  ar,d  for  iii'.rope. 

The  Restoration  could  have  but  little  sympathy  with  a  republic  founded 
on  the  principle  of  national  sovereignty,  and  which  had  arisen  wiili  great- 
ness asid  distinction  from  a  revolution.  vSo  it  is  easy  to  })erceive.  in  the 
policy  (jfthe  various  ministers  id' the  Rcstoiation  witii  regard  to  the  claims 
incessantly  urged  by  the  United  States,  the  manifest  desire  to  evade  them 
by  Q.\ei'y  means  which  circumstances  and  the  interpretation  of  former  trea- 
ties could  suggest.  We  shall  see  them  in  the  following  reasonir)gs,  while 
admitting  the  justice  of  certain  claims,  endeavoring  t(5  escape  the  conse- 
«juences  of  such  atlmission. 

1.  Tin;  S'.h  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession  of  Louisiana,  concluded  in 
IjSOS,  declares  that  French  vessels  shall  be  ti-eated  on  the  footing  of  the 
)!!ost  favored  nation,  in  the  ports  of  Unit  country.  But,  by  the  ti-caty  of 
Ghent  of  1814,  the  English  received  advantages  in  those  veiy  ports  which 
the  French  have  not ;  France  has,  therefore,  a  riglit  to  indemnification  for 
tiie  damages  which  its  commerce  may  have  sustained  I'rom  this  infraction. 
Tlie  imlemnifications  demanded  on  either  side  are  to  be  weighed  against 
t-ach  other;  the  questions  are  of  tlie  same  ciiaracter,  au<l  should  be  tieated 
in  tlie  same  negotiation. 

2.  'i'hc  King's  Government  is  not  responsible  for  the  acts  of  tire  Go- 
vernment of  JSapoleon ;  it  acquits  positive  debts  founded  upon  authentie 
titles,  and  susceptible  of  being  made  clear  ;  beyond  this  limit,  the  Go- 
verinnent  does  not  ctmsider  itself  obliged  to  make  reparation  for  the  acts  of 
jip(i!Iations  and  injustice  committed  imder  the  regime  of  the  usurpation. 

On  the  fii'st  point,  drawn  from  tlie  infraction  of  tlie  8th  article  tjf  the 
Louisiana  treaty,  the  claim  of  the  Govertanent  was  legitimate.  Its  justice 
was  admitted  by  the  Federal  Governmeiit,  and  Mr.  Rives,  minister  pleni- 
potentiaiy  of  liie  United  States,  \vas  authorized  to  make  it  the  subject  of  a 
separate  negotiation.  Thei'c  arose  a  diiliculty.  Propositions  were  ma<Ie, 
and  notes  ejtchanged,  but  to  no  effect.  The  question,  on  being  submitted 
to  a  commission,  was  determined  in  favor  of  thccoimexion  between  the  two 
claims.  The  following  are  the  conclusions  of  the  i-eport  \)f  this  commis- 
sion, presented  on  the  31st  of  xMay,  1350. 

"it  a})pears  to  us,  that  in  nraking  known  to  tiie  American  Government 
the  detejininalion  of  the  King's  Government  never  to  make  reparation  for 
the  acts  of  injustice,  violence  or  sj)oliation,  committed  under  the  Imperial 
Government,  it  migiit  be  declared  that  France  surrenders  all  claims  on 
account  of  the  infraction  «)f  l\:c  Stli  article  of  thetreaty  of  cession  of  Louisi- 
ana, on  condition  that  the  Federal  (.Government,  on  its  side,  should  re- 
nounce all  claims  relative  to  acts  ci)mniitied  before  the  King's  Government 
wiis  in  power." 

There  is  evQvy  reason  to  believe  that  the  comnsission,  in  proposing  to 
unite  two  questions,  which  were  declared  repeatedly  by  the  American  ne- 
gotiators to  be  independent  of  each  other,  was  only  endeavoring  to  gain 
time  for  the  French  Government,  or  to  place  it  in  a  more  favorable  posi- 
tion for  terminating  the  negotiation. 

£7  * 


410  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

\Vc  have  endeavored  to  discover,  from  the  documents  furnished  to  lis, 
whether  any  principle  had  heen  adopted  (hiring  the  negotiations  of  the  peri- 
od, in  order  to  arrive  at  tlie  amount  of  the  losses  for  which  the  United 
States  required  indemnification. 

We  liave  found  a  decision  on  the  subject  made  hy  the  commission,  iiftlie 
foHowing  terms  :  <'If  it  were  judged  necessary  to  give  satisfaction  to  the 
United  States  on  any  of  the  species  of  claims  advanced  by  them,  we  think 
the  only  proper  mode  would  be  to  estimate,  as  neaily  as  possible,  the 
amount  of  these  claims,  and  give  the  United  States  Government  a  sum 
with  which  it  should  agree  to  satisfy  the  claimants." 

The  negotiation  however  proceeded,  but  was  interrupted  by  t!ic 
revolution  of  July,  which  shook  all  Europe,  and  gave  reason  to  fearthata 
war  of  principle  would  force  France  to  resume  her  long  victorious  arms. 
In  this  position,  the  Government  thought  it  prudent  and  ])ropcr  seriously 
to  resume  its  negotiations  with  the  United  States,  which  had  been  raised  by 
a  long  period  of  prosperity,  to  an  eminent  rank  among  maritime  Powers, 
and  were  in  a  situation  to  make  their  flag  respected.  A  commission  was 
appointed  to  proceed  to  a  minute  examination  of  the  resjiective  claims  of 
tiie  two  countries,  and  to  propose  a  basis  for  a  definitive  arrangement. 

It  is  remarkable  that,  after  a  long  discussion  on  the  principle  of  tiic  indem- 
nification, and  on  tlie  terms  of  the  treaty  to  be  concluded,  the  majority  of 
the  commision  had  ari'ived  at  the  same  distribution  of  cases,  and  nearly  at 
the  same  estimate  which  was  presented  to  the  Emperor  in  1814.  So,  by 
each  report,  there  would  be  a  just  claim  for  the  same  species  of  cases.  By 
file  first,  the  amount  of  the  indemnification  was  13,000,000  francs  ;  by  the 
second,  it  was  13,747,000  ;  buttlicre  is  one  notable  difference.  Tiie  j)rice 
at  which  the  confiscated  j)roperty  w^as  sold,  was,  from  the  calculations  of 
the  Duke  of  Vicenza,  considered  as  in  general  below  the  real  value,  and 
the  list  of  vessels  as  incom[ilete  ;  from  which  considerations,  the  sum  was 
raised  to  18,000,000.  In  the  second  report,  on  the  contrary,  the  cargoes 
were  valued  at  only  their  ])rice  at  the  place  of  shipment ;  and  the  commis- 
sion reduced  the  sum  of  the  indemnification  to  12,000,000  francs. 

The  infraction  of  the  Louisiana  treaty  is  but  sliglitly  noticed  in  the  re- 
port of  the  commission  of  1831.  It  left  the  Govei-innent  to  determine 
whether  a  counter  claim  should  be  fotnided  on  it,  or  whether  it  should  be 
made  the  subject  of  a  special  negotiation. 

The  estimate  of  the  indemnifications  presented  by  the  Americans  w^as 
widely  different  from  those  of  either  of  our  own  commissions.  According 
to  a  message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  Congress,  sent 
July  6th,  1812,  we  had  at  that  period  taken  from  the  United  States — 

1.  Before  the  date  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,     -     206  vessels. 

2.  While  those  decrees  were  in  force,  -  -  ..     307       " 

3.  Since  their  repeal,     -  -  -  -  -45*' 


Total,    -  -     558       « 

Mr.  Rives,  an  active  and  skilful  negotiator,  presented,  in  1831,  claims 
for  485  prizes,  valued  at  14.000,000  dollars,  declaring  moreover  in 
his  accompanying  letter,  that  the  lists  sent  did  not  comprise  all  the  claims. 
The  sum  was,  after  the  first  examination,  reduced  to  13,000,000  dollars, 
which,  at  5  francs  40  centimes  the  dollar,  made  about  70,000,000  francs; 
etjHal  to  the  demand  made  by  Mr.  Barlow,  in  his  first  note,  during  the 
negotiation  of  18 1&. 


f  Doc.  No.  2.  j  411 

Tiic  abT)vie  is  Ji  stimniary  account  of  the  negotiations  wliicli  were  tcrmi- 
siated  in  183!,  by  a  convention  signed  on  the  4tli  of  July,  the  glorious  an- 
niversary of  the  declaration  of  independence  of  tlie  United  States. 

It  is  to  carry  tiiis  convention  irito  effect,  that  the  ministry  novv'  asks  the 
rnncurrence  of  tlic  Chatnber,  Tiic  same  demand  was  ma(!c  towards  the 
close  of  our  i)receding  session  ;  a  coniniittee  was  ordered  to  examine  the 
treaty;  but  the  mere  investigation  of  tbe  papers  pj-esented  orj  the  subject 
required  a  great  length  of  time,  and  the  report  could  tiot  lu^ve  been  Hub- 
?nitted  to  you  before  the  close  of  your  labors.  Under  these  circumstances, 
M.  Bertjaann  Belcsscrt,  one  of  the  coinsnittee,  was  requested  to  exj)ress 
^ts  regret  that  tiie  business  could  not  be  concluded  within  the  tinjc  allowed. 
*'Tiie  c(niimittee,"  added  our  honorable  colleague,  *'  regrets  this  the  more 
■deeply,  as  it  is  convinced  of  the  im[)ortance  of  the  treaty,  and  a's  several 
ciiambers  of  commerce,  pai'ticulaidy  those  of  P<iris  and  Lyorts,  have  ex- 
pressed their  ard^ent  desire  to  see  the  matter  j)romptly  settled." 

Your  present  committee  lias  employed,  in  the  task  assigned  to  it,  all  the 
zeal  aiid  activity  wiiicli  could  accelerate  a  conclusion  so  in»i)afie!itly  ex|)ect- 
ed.  It  directed  its  labor  to  the  determination  of  three  principal  questions, 
each  of  which  will  be  discussed  in  its  turn. 

1.  Arc  the  claims  of  the  United  States  founded  on  justice  : 

2.  Admitting  the  justice  of  the  claims,  is  twenty-five  millions  of  francs 
moi^  than  their  legitimate  amount  ? 

3.  Are  the  commercial  advantages  granted  by  the  Ameiic-ins  to  be  con- 
sidered as  suflicient  compensation  for  the  losses  which  were  sustained  by 
tlic,  commerce  of  France  in  consequence  of  the  non-observance  of  the 
eigbt!^  article  of  the  treaty  of  cessiou  of  Louisiana  ? 

If  the  American  Government  had  j)ersisted  in  demanding,  without  ex- 
ceptions, irKlcmnification  for  the  seizures  made  in  virtue  of  the  decrees  of 
Berlin,  Milan,  and  Rambouillet,  their  claim,  urged  in  that  form,  could 
Biever  have  been  listened  to.  No  doubt  a  time  will  come,  soon  we  hope, 
when  private  property  v,'ill  be  respected  on  sea  as  it  now  is  on  land  ;  when 
the  neutrality  of  maritime  Fowei-s  will  be  generally  acknowledged  in  the- 
ory, and  observed  in  j)ractice.  Ever  since  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  in  1713, 
France  has  never  ceased  its  endeavors  to  obtain  these  ameliorations  in 
che  code  of  national  law.  Siicli  is  still  the  wish  of  all  who  do  not  despair 
of  seeing  a  complete  alliance  betvvcen  morals  and  politics. 

But  in  the  present  discussion  we  must  refer  only  to  the  principles  by 
which  Governments  were  guided  during  the  wars  of  the  Empire.  Eng- 
Jand  forbade  all  commerce  with  France,  under  penalty  of  seizure  and  con- 
fiscation, and  declared  coasts  blockaded  on  which  thei-e  was  not  a  single 
Englisli  vessel.  The  Imperial  Government,  in  adoj)ting  the  same  system, 
and  taking  the  same  measures,  exercised  the  just  right  of  reprisal.  Seizures 
by  which  the  French  suffered,  had  been  made  in  American  ports  ;  the  acts 
of  all  parties  were  irrevocable. 

The  question  has  been  ])ut  on  another  footing.  The  minister  plenipo- 
tentiary of  the  United  States  declared  in  1812  that  the  American  Govern- 
ment confined  its  claims  within  the  following  limits  :  it  regarded  as  subject 
to  restitution  every  seizure  made  since  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  tiit> 
date  of  the  repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  as  far  as  they  affecteif 
Americans.  It  attacked  the  seizures  made  before  this  period,  whcu 
they  had  not  been  conducted  according  to  legal  forms  :  thus  every  thing, 
which  did  not  result  from  a  condemnation  by  the  Prize  Council,  every 
thing  which  had  been  done  before  the  Americans  coiild  receive  notirc  of 


4l2  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

tlic  proliiijitive  dccjccs,  all  seizures  ninde  in  ports  out  of  France,  sac?;- a3 
t!i(»He  i-;t  St.  Sebastian,  wei'c  considered  by  the  United  States  as  iUcgUi- 
mate,  and  requiring  con;jvensation.  Tiicy  also  demanded  reparation  for 
tlicSossol'a  certain  number  ot"  American  vessi-ls,  which  having  bcesi  met  aS 
sea  by  French  vessels,  were  burnt  or  sunk  by  them,  in  order  eo  conceal 
their  movements  irom  the  enemy. 

It  was  upon  these  claims  only  that  discussions  were  carried  on.  ftYoui- 
committee  began  by  layifsg  aside  the  principles  of  nt)n-responsib!lity  ibr 
the  acts  of  the  Imperial  Government,  which  had  been  termed  a  usurping 
<j>overnmc!ot  by  tiic  Restoration.  Such  an  exception  was  untenable.  A 
Governme}it  is  to  other  nations  only  the  representative  of  that  whose 
exterior  relations  it  conducts.  The  acts  of  the  Emper!)r  were  the  acts  of 
a  most  legitimate  power.  The  justice  of  certain  American  claims  has  been 
admitted  in  principle;  negotiations  had  been  begun,  and  were  on  the 
point  of  being  .concluded.  Tliis  ])o]ilical  proceeding  of  the  Imperial 
Government  was  to  be  considered  as  the  act  of  that  which  succeeded  it, 
and  which,  on  entering  irjto  power,  took  upon  itself  its  burdens  and  its 
advantages.  Tliere  may  be  an  interruption  in  tl;e  existence  of  a  Govern- 
ment;  there  can  be  none  in  that  of  a  ])eople,  Governments,  whatever  be 
their  pretensions,  being  only  representatives  :  if  the  reproach  of  usurpatioi'j 
had  been  founded  on  justice  (and  it  certainly  was  not)  it  coald  not  pre- 
vail against  those  maxims  of  public  law  which  guaranty  the  rights  and 
reciprocal  duties  of  nations. 

This  point  beii.'g  established,  your  committee  took  up  the  demands  of 
Mr.  Rives,  the  American  minister,  in  1831.  They  were  prcser»ted  under 
niiic  heads  or  classes,  ar.d  he  proposed  to  have  tliem  discussed  by  a  joint 
commission,  to  be  composed  of  commissioners  from  each  country.  The 
Jieads,  or  classes,  [categories,]  were  as  follows: 

1.  Vessels  not  iiefjiiiiively  condemned  by  the  Prize  Council. 

2.  Vessels  destroyed  at  sea. 

3.  Sums  dnc  for  articles  furnished, 

4.  Condemnations  made  contrary  to  tlie  convention  of  1800. 

5.  Condemnations  made  since  November  1,  1310. 

6.  Condemnations  made  by  incompetent  tribunals. 

7.  Condemnations  made  without  the  ordinary  forms  of  procedui'c. 

8.  Condemnations  made  by  a  retrospective  application  of  the  decrees. 

9.  All  seizures  for  wiiich  the  joint  commission  may  agree  that  indem- 
nification should  be  allowed. 

According  to  the  opinion  of  the  commission  of  1831,  it  v.  as  decided,  Ist. 
That  there  should  be  no  mixed  commission.  2d.  That  we  showiil  treat  for 
a  fixed  sum,  the  distribution  of  which  should  be  abandoned  to  the  United 
States,  according  to  general  principles  agreed  upon  between  the  tw'o  Go- 
vernments. Sd.  That  tise  Iseads,  or  classes,  proposed  by  Mr.  Rives, 
should  be  simplified,  and  reduced  to  the  four  whicii  had  been  adopted  in 
1814,  viz. 

1.  Vessels  seized  before  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  were  known  ; 
that  is  to  say,  within  eighty  days  after  their  publication. 

2.  Vessels  seized  after  the  1st  of  November,  ISIO,  the  date  of  the  re- 
peal of  those  decrees. 

•3.  Vessels  seized  in  Spain,  and  sold  at  Eayonne. 

4.  Vessels  sunk  or  burnt  by  the  French  squadrons. 

It  is   the   unanimous    opinion   of  your   committee  that   the    Gover}i- 


f  Doc.  No.  2.  J  413 

mtm  has  acted  justly  In  admitting  the  American  claims  embraced  within 
tlj(»sc  limits  as  tiie  basis  of  a  dcfiuitivG  arrangemeTit  Nvith  ti-c  UisKed 
States. 

The  Government  acted  justly  ;  for,  by  the  {)rit!ci[dcs  of  the  laws  of  na- 
tions, if  it  be  necessary  to  destroy  neutral  vessels  in  time  of  war  for  our 
own  security,  indemnification  should  be  ni^de  for  the  injury.  As  to  the 
seizures  at  St,  Sebastian,  several  circuPiistances,  among  otiiers,  a  lettci- 
published  by  General  Thouvenot,  commatider  of  the  military  divi^iion  of 
Ouipuscoa.  may  have  induced  the  Americans  ta  believe  that  they  might 
safely  enter  tlie  port  of  that  city,  particularly  as  one  American  vessel  had 
actually  been  allowed  to  unload  and  dispose  of  its  cargo  without  molesta- 
tion. Our  national  honor  was  interested  in  the  admission  of  the  claims 
under  tiiis  head.  V/itli  respect  to  the  seizures  made  after  the  repeal  of  the 
.prohibitive  decrees,  it  must  be  granted  that  this  retrosjKJCtive  proceeding 
was  unjustiSable,  especially  as  the  United  States  were  at  the  vary  time  com- 
snencing  a  war  with  Great  Britain,  in  vindication  of  their  neutrality.  Final- 
ly, it  is  conformable  with  propriety,  and  with  equity,  that  no  j)rohii)itory 
measure  should  be  carried  into  execution,  until  after  a  period  suflicient  to 
give  the  parties  whom  it  would  affect,  s.n  opportunity  of  kiunving  it.  Eighty 
days  were  allowed  for  this  purpose,  in  reciprocation  of  the  same  period 
granted  to  French  vessels  by  the  American  non-intercourse  act.  *• 

Having  admitted  the  justice  of  the  American  claims,  we  took  up  tiie  se- 
cond (question,  to  wit:  Whether  the  sum  of  25,000,000  francs  could  have 
t)een  reduced  ;  or,  in  other  words,  whetlier  the  Government  could  not 
liave  concluded  a  treaty  v.'ith  the  United  States  on  less  onerous  terms. 

On  tiiis  point  opinions  were  divided.  Some  of  the  committee  insisted 
that  the  American  claims  had  by  changing  hands,  become  much  deprcciat- 
«d  ;  that  the  present  holders  would  have  considered  themselves  \  ery  fortu- 
nate in  being  able  to  surrender  tiiem  at  a  price  far  less  tiian  the  sum  allowed 
tliera;  and  that^  if  the  Government  had  urged  this,  it  might  have  obtained 
better  conditions. 

Your  committee  know  no  fact,  and  had  no  rule  by  whicU  those  assertions 
could  be  weighed.  In  justice,  the  payment  is  due,  upon  proof  of  the  debt, 
'to  the  person  who  may  be  the  Insider  of  tlie  claim.  Let  the  public  funds  be 
ever  so  low,  the  capital  is  not  the  less  justly  due.  The  Govcnnnent  did 
not  inquire  into  whose  hands  the  claims  liad  passed,  but  whether  the  sum  of 
twenty-five  millions  did  not  exceed  their  value. 

We  will,  therefore,  without  longer  dwelling  upon  this  consideration, 
which  is  foreign  to  the  matter  in  question,  proceed  to  examine  the  grounds, 
on  wiiich  the  above  estimate  was  founded.    The  documents  presented  were  : 

Scvei*al  oHicial  lists  furnished  by  the  administration  of  the  custom-hmiscs, 
sljowing  the  vessels  which  were  seized  in  Spain — those  seized  in  Holland  and 
sold  at  Antwerp — and  those  seized  by  the  French  authorities  and  sold  in  the 
same  port;  an  oiiicial  list,  found  in  the  archives  of  the  Prize  Council,  of 
the  American  vessels  condemned  between  the  1st  of  January,  1807,  and  the 
ist  of  November,  1810  ;  together  with  eleven  lists  drawn  up  under  the  Em- 
pire, from  otScial  sources,  but  incomplete.  Among  tliese  we  shall  notice, 
1st.  A  list  of  American  vessels  which  had  entered  the  ports  of  France  before 
Taaving  knowledge  of  the  Bei-lin  decree  of  November  21,  1806,  or  the  jSIi- 
lan  decrees  of  November  23  and  December  17,  1807.  2d.  A  list  of  the 
American  vessels  seized  in  France  since  the  1st  of  November,  1810. 
?d.  The  officiallist,  furnished  by  the  Minister  of  Marine,  of  the  American 


414  [  Doc.  No.   2.  J 

v>cssels  biinil  or  sunk  at  sea  by  vessels  f>f  tlie  Freitcii  navy.  4th,  ScTers'l 
.suj)|)leinentary  lists  i'rom  llie  archives  «)i"  tlie  Council  of  State. 

Aftci-  an  attentive  examination  of  tiiesc  various  docmnents,  tlie  five  fol- 
lowing statements  vvei-e  made  out,  on  wliich  the  estintate  was  founded  :. 

Statement  J — Destroyed  at  sea  by  French  vessels^  without  any  othe?* 
ni.otivc  tlian  llic  interests  «)f  our  navy,  31  ve.ssels — -allow  31  vessels  and  31^ 
cargoes,  oi'  which  4  were  vaUjed  by  the  liochefort  commission,  to  wit : 

Francs.  Cent 
The  Hart  -  -  .  -  .  80,205  27 

The  Two  Friends    -----  177,078  05 

The  Alpha  -  -  -  -    '         -  105,119  32 

The  Minerva  -  -        ,     -  -  -  264,525  85 


Total  -  -  ...  .  626,928  49 

Statement  B. — Seized  and  c(xndemMed  by  \\\&  Prize  Council,  or  by  Im- 
perial decisions,  in  virtue  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  before  the  expi- 
i-ation  of  eighty  days  from  tlieir  publication,  42  vessels ;  from  which  are  to  be 
deducted^ — the  Jngusta,  restored  with  her  cargo  ;  the  Jimerica,  wliich  had 
lost  Iter  nationality,  having  been  previously  captured  by  an  English  brig» 
and  carried  into  Portsmouth  ;  and  the  cargoes  o-ftlic  Speculator,  the  Charles- 
ton., "hti  Hibernia,  and  the  Thomas  Jefferson^  which  vessels  were  in  ballast 
when  raptured.     There  remain,  then,  40  vessels  and  36  cargoes. 

Statement  C. — Seized  in  Spain, 'and  carried  into  Bayoime,  36  vessels  ? 
from  which  are  to  be  de<luctcd,  the  cargo  of  the  Enterprise^  sold  in  Spain 
before  the  seizure,  and  the  following  eight  vessels  :  the  Perseverance,  the 
Deux  Fils,  the  Commodore  Rodgers,  the  Camilla,  the  Britannia,  tiie  Spen- 
cer, the  Sally,  in.d  the  Radius.  There  remain,  then,  28  vessels  and  35  car- 
goes, of  which  the  35  cargoes  brought  7,293,260  francs  99  centimes,  ex- 
clusive of  custom-house  duties. 

Twenty  vessels  only  wcjcsoJd  by  the  custoni-honse  for  262,075  francs; 
the  other  eight  having  been  surrendered  to  the  administration  of  Marine 
by  Imperial  decisioii. 

The  custom-house  duties  on  the  35  cargoes  sold,  an^ounted,  according  to 
the  official  return  of  the  custom-house,  to  8*223,935  francs  27  centimes. 

Statement  D — Condemned,  though  seized  since  the  1st  of  November,, 
1810,  15  vessels  ;  from  which  are  to  be  deducted  the  Robinson  and  her  car- 
go, because  the  seizer  came  to  an  understanding  with  the  party  seized,  witlu 
the  approval  of  the  autiiorities  ;  and  the  Belisarius,  restored  with  her 
cargo  to  the  proprietors.     'Diei'c  remain,  then,  13  vessels  aird  13  cargoes. 

Statement  E. — Seized  before  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  but  condemned' 
after  the  28th  April,  1811,  that  is  to  say,  subseqnent  to  the  imperial  decree 
repealingtheprohibitory  decrees  from  and  after  the  1st  of  November,  1810,. 
12  vessels  ;  from  whicli  tliere  being  no  deduction  to  be  made,  there  are  to 
be  allowed  12  vessels  and  12  cargoes. 

There  are,  then,  124  vessels  and  127  cargoes  for  which  mdem:-iilication 
should  be  made. 

The  number  of  illegal  seizures  and  sales  having  been  thus  estimated  as. 
nearly  as  possible,  four  methods  were  employed  for  arriving  at  their  value  r 

1.  Calculating  from  the  known  value  of  the  cargoes  sold,  either  at  Ba- 
yonne  or  afc  Antwerp,  and  tlie  valuation  made  at  Kochefort  of  the  four 
vessels  sunk,  the  average  value  of  each  vessel  and  cargo  was  estimated  at 
294,259  francs  18  centimes. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.   1  415 

2.  Calculating  from  tlie  valuatiojis  at  Rochefort  and  tlie  sales  at  Ba- 
yonire  only,  and  excluding  tlie  sales  made  at  Atitsverj),  the  average  value  of 
each  vessel  and  cai'go  would  be  214,841  francs  86  centimes. 

3.  Calculating  only  from  tfTc  valuations  made  at  Uocliefort  of  the  four 
vessels  in  stafementJl,  the  average  value  of  each  vessel  and  cargo  confiscated 
would  be  156,735  francs  9  centimes. 

4.  'I'aking,  for  tlie  vessels  destroyed  the  valuation  of  the  four  made  at 
Rochefoi't,  and  for  those  coiideniHed  the  price  of  sale  at  liayonne,  the  ave- 
rage value  would  be, 

1st.   F(»r  each  of  tlie  vessels  destroyed,  156,735  francs  9  centimes. 
2d.  For  each  of  tlie  vessels  condemned,  221,482  frawcs  65  centimes. 
The   amount  for  the  whole  124  vessels  and   127  cargoes  would  be,  ac- 
coi'ding  to 

Francs.      Cent. 

The  1st  method  of  ascertaining  the  value,  -    .         -     34,234,329  32 

2d  -...-.     27,245,605    16 

3d  .  -  .  -  -  -      22,132,209  40 

4th  ......     26,081,809  02 

Sucli  were  the  calculations  made  by  the  Government,  for  the  purpose  of 
arriving  at  the  just  amount  of  the  indemnification. 

We  have  observed  tiiat  tlie  claims  presented  at  different  times  by  Mr. 
Barlow  and  Mr.  Rives  were  for  seventy  millions  of  francs.  These  negotia- 
tors included  in  their  estimates  the  values  of  American  vessels  confiscated 
in  Holland  and  sold  at  Antwerp,  in  virtue  of  an  arrangement  between 
Napoleon  and  the  King  of  Holland.  They  also  brouglit  forward  seveial 
<ither  classes  of  claims,  which  could  not  be  allowed.  After  numerous  con- 
ferences, new  discussions,  and  offers  on  botli  sides,  the  sum  of  twenty-live 
millions  of  francs  was  agreed  upon  as  the  amount  of  the  indemiufication, 
to  be  paid  by  instalments,  and  bearing  an  interest  of  four  cent,  pei'  an- 
num, until  the  whole  sum  was  discharged. 

Various  objections  have  been  urged  against  tiiii  estimates  made  by  the 
Government. 

it  has  been  asked  whether  the  four  vessels  and  cargoes  valued  at  Roche^ 
fort  were  subject  to  indemnification,  there  being  no  means  of  ascei'taining 
whether  they  were,  when  destroyed,  legally  liable  to  seizure  or  not. 

This  uncertainty,  and  the  principle  (incomnwda  vitunlis  mclior  qnam 
commoda  petentis  est  causa,)  re(]uiriiig  that,  in  doubtful  cases,  the  inter- 
j)retation  and  decision  should  be  in  favor  of  the  party  which  loses,. and  not 
of  that  which  gains,  induced  your  committee  to  admit  these  vessels,  for  the 
determination  of  the  amount  of  indemnification. 

One  of  our  colleagues  was  of  opinion  that  siatement  Ji,  of  which 
the  commission  of  1830  had  no  knowledge,  should  not  be  taken  into  c(mi- 
sideration  by  us  ;  he  proposed,  in  fact,  that  we  should  examine  no  docu- 
ment which  had  not  been  produced  in  1830  and  1831.  To  this,  the  reply 
was,  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  justify  such  a  decision,  it  being  our  duty 
to  collect  evei-y  thing  whicli  could  throw  light  on  our  deliberations,  and  on 
those  of  the  Chamber.  Besides  which,  the  statement  in  (juestionbore  tlie 
same  character  of  authenticity  with  the  other  documents  officially  furnish- 
ed to  the  committee,  and  the  vessels  coming  under  that  class  were  included 
in  the  lists  found  among  the  archives  of  the  Council  of  State. 

The  committee  then  examined  an  observation  of  the  commission  of  1830, 
relative  to  the  sales  made  at  Bayonne.     That  commission  proposed  to  take 


41G  [  Doc.  Ko.  2.  ] 

as  the  basis  of  the  estimate,  not  the  selling  price  of  tiic  cargoes,  but  tiicir 
price  at  the  jilace  of  shipment,  on  the  prisiciple  tiiat  colonial  goods  were 
at  tliat  time  excessively  dear  in  France.  This  remark,  suggested  to  the 
Government  in  order  that  it  uiiglit  he  used  in  the  pecnniary  discussion 
"witli  t!ic  United  States,  should  be  now  reduced  to  its  real  irnj)ortance. 

At  the  time  the  sales  were  made  atBayoinie.  that  city  wasratiicr  a  place 
(if  v.';ir  than  of  commerce,  and  tliere  could  ha\c  been  but  little  competition 
in  ])iices  :  besides  whicii,  tiie  obligation  trt  pay  the  custom-house  duties  ir; 
ready  money,  and  the  precipitate  sale  made  of  so  great  a  mass  of  colonial 
productions  at  once,  must  have  rendered  such  sale  by  no  means  advanta- 
geous. Of  this,  the  best  proof  is  in  the  difference  between  the  products 
of  the  custom-house  duties  and  of  the  sales  ;  tlic  duties  amounting  to  eight 
millions,  and  the  sales  to  but  seven  millions.  On  ccnnnarina;  these  sales 
with  tiiMse  made  at  Antwerp,  a  city  of  great  commerce,  and  where  there 
was  much  established  competition,  we  shall  be  astonished  at  the  lowiiess 
of  the  valuations  made  at  Bayonne  and  Rochefoi-t.  This  lowness  of  price 
vvas  acknosvledged  by  the  Duke'of  Vicenza  in  his  rej)ort  to  the  Emperor 
on  the  nth  of  January,  1814.  The  price  of  a  vessel  and  cargo  sold  at 
Antwerp,  was  354,000  f.  instead  of  214,000  f.,  which  would  have  been  its 
vahse  in  ])roj!ortion  to  the  estiinate  at  Bayonne.  It  must  therefore  be  ad- 
mitted that  tills  latter  valuation  was  not  too  high.  « 

Some  members  have  expressed  doubts  as  to  the  justice  of  the  indemnifi- 
cation for  tiie  twelve  vessels  in  statement  B,  which  had  been  seized  before 
the  1st  of  November,  1810,  and  condemned  after  tlie  28th  of  April,  1311, 
the  date  of  the  official  repeal  of  the  decrees.  It  has  been  said  that  the  date  of 
the  coiulemnation  was  not  to  be  considered,  but  that  of  the  seizure  only ; 
that  the  twelve  vessels  were  seized  while  the  ])rohibitory  decrees  were  in 
force,  that  they  were  of  I'ight  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Prize  Cwuncil, 
and  that  their  condemnation  was  only  the  natural  consequence  of  proceed- 
ings legally  conducted. 

Your  committee  was  aware  of  the  force  of  this  objection  ;  but  taking  into 
view  the  extreme  rigor  of  the  decrees,  which  had  been  ileclared  by  Napoleon 
himself  "  ^d  be  a  return  to  the  barbarism  of  the  early  nges;^'  and  considering 
that  if  the^e  decrees  were  to  be  judged  according  to  the  true  principles  of 
national  law,  in  an  age,  not  of  barbarism  but  of  civilization,  they  would 
be  esteemed  as  evils  which  are  indeed  authorized  in  a  state  of  war,  but  for 
which  satisfaction  sliould  be  made  ;  considering  also,  that  the  matter  in 
question  between  France  and  the  United  States  was  not.  a  settlement  in 
which  amounts  were  to  be  positively  ascertained  and  admitted,  but  an  act 
of  mutual  kindness,  a  commercial  and  political  approximation  useful  to 
both, parties,  } our  committee,  though  pi-esentiiig  tlie  objection  in  all  its 
force,  has  not  thought  jiroper  to  admit  it  as  a  ground  of  reproach  to  tiie 
ministry  of  1831,  noj-  to  regard  it  as  a  suilicient  motive  for  refusing  to 
the  present  ministry  the  means  of  carrying  the  treaty  into  execution. 

Your  committee  has  endeavored  to  make  estimates  itself,  for  the  jiur- 
pose  of  comparing  tiiem  with  those  made  by  the  Government.  In  so  doing, 
it  has  however  deducted  from  statement  Jl  one  vessel  and  cargo,  (the 
Governor  Barnes,  captured  by  the  JJranie,)  because  of  the  uncertainty  as  to 
the  precise  date  of  their  destruction,  admitting  as  certain  the  four  vessels 
of  statement  A',  and  the  twelve  of  statement  E. 

It  has  taken  as  the  basis  of  its  estimates — 

1.  For  the  vessels  burnt  or  sunk  at  sea,  tlie  mean  of  the  four  valuations 
made  by  the  commission  at  Rochefort,  which  is  156.735  f.  9  cent. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  ■  417 

2.  For  the  vessels  and  c.irgoes  sold  at  Bayonne,  the  product  of  said  sales, 
deducting  the  custom-house  duties,  which  product  is  7,293,260  f.  69  cent. 

3.  For  all  otiier  cases,  the  mean  resulting  from  tiie  sales  at  Bayonne, 
combiiied  with  tlie  valuation  at  Rochefort,  which  is  189,108  f.  86  cent. 

From  these  we  have  arrived  at  the  following  estimates  : 

Statement.    Vessels.  Cargoes.         Francs.   Cent.       Francs.  Cent. 

A            26  26              4,075,112  34 

4  4  val.  unc.                               626,940  49 

C             20  35              7,555,3$5   99 

B  kD        53  49              9,318,749   14 

E            12  12  val.  unc.                            2,269,306  32 


Total  115  126  20,949,197  47         2,896,246  81 

2,896,246   81 


23,845,444  28 


So  the  certain  values  amount  to  nearly  21  millions,  and  those  which  are 
uncertain  to  nearly  3  millions.  I'o  which  should  be  added  the  value  of  eight 
vessels  not  sold  at  Hayonne,  and  given  to  the  administration  of  the  Marine, 
in  virtue  of  imperial  decisions. 

These  calculations  come  very  near  tlie  estimate  on  which  the  Govern- 
ment must  have  founded  its  ultimate  determination  of  the  amount  of  the 
indemnification.  It  appears,  from  Mr.  llives's  correspondence,  that  he 
insisted  at  first  on  thirty-two  millions.  T!ie  minority  of  the  committee  of 
1830  were  in  favor  of  admitting  thirty  millions  ;  their  opinion,  however, 
was  not  i*eceived,  either  by  the  majority  or  by  the  Government. 

A  previous  offer  of  fifteen  millions  had  been  made  and  refused  ;  new  con- 
ferences ensued,  after  which  the  Government  proposed  twenty  millions, 
while  the  American  minister  on  his  side  came  down  to  thirty  millions.  T.he 
ministry  then  in  power,  viewing  the  question  as  one  of  great  political  and 
comu)ercial  moment,  resolved  to  put  an  end  to  these  harassing  negotiations, 
and  the  American  minister  having  further  lowered  his  demands,  the  sum 
of  twenty-five  millions  of  francs  w-as  finally  agreed  upon. 

If  we  compare  the  estimates  presented  by  me,  with  those  of  the  first 
valuation  made  January  II,  1814,  which  amounted  to  eighteen  millions 
at  the  beginning,  and  take  into  consideration  the  known  results  of  the  con- 
vention of  1831,  it  must  in  honor  be  admitted,  that  the  sacrifice  imposed 
upon  tlie  Treasury  of  the  State,  how  much  soever  it  may  be  regretted,  can- 
not be  refused  without  wounding  the  jjriticiples  of  justice,  and  jeoparding 
the  interests  of  our  commerce  and  industry.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  your 
committee. 

In  the  order  of  tlie  discussion,  we  now  arrive  at  the  treaty  of  cession 
of  Louisiana.  By  the  eighth  article  of  that  convention,  French  vessels 
were  to  be  treated  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana  on  the  footing  of  the  most  fa- 
vored nation.  France  ceded  that  colony  to  the  United  States,  and  the 
commercial  advantages  which  she  reserved  to  herself  were  a  part  of  the 
j)rice  for  which  the  cession  was  made  ;  these  being  fixed  in  the  treaty,  the 
American  Government  could  neither  limit  the  extent,  nor  the  duration  j 
and  it  followed,  tliat  if  otlier  nations  obtained  more  favorable  treatment 
in  tlie  i>orts  of  Louisiana,  France  was  entitled  to  receive  the  same.  Thus, 
when  England  obtained,  by  the  Ghent  treaty  in  1815,  the  same  privileges 


418  >  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

for  Iter  vessel*!  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  which  were  eiijoyed  by 
American  vessels,  France  considered  herself  justified  in  demanding  that 
her  vessels  should  receive  the  same  favor  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana. 

Two  abjections  were  made  to  this  claim.  The  United  States  urged  that 
the  concession  made  to  England  was  not  gratuitous ;  that  they  merely 
granted  the  same  advantages  wiiich  their  own  vessels  enjoyed  in  the  ports 
of  the  Englisli  colonies  ;  and  that,  if  they  should  receive  from  France  the 
same  favors,  they  would  treat  her  in  like  manner.  IJut  this  objection  is 
controverted  by  the  preceding  observations.  France  had  already  paid  the 
price  of  the  privilege  demanded,  and  that  privilege  had  been  granted  to  her 
without  the  exaction  of  any  other  conditions. 

The  second  objection  raised  by  the  United  States  was,  tijat  they  had  no 
right,  by  their  legislation,  to  grant  sp^ecial  privileges  in  one  part  of  tlie  fede- 
ral territory,  which  were  not  enjoyed  by  all  other  parts  ;  and  that  therefore 
foreigners  cannot  be  received  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana  in  a  manner  differ- 
ent from  that  in  wiiich  they  ai-e  received  in  other  ports  of  the  Union.  To 
this  objection,  it  is  sufficient  to  reply,  that  it  was  not  urged  when  the  Unit- 
ed States  reserved  for  France  these  special  advantages  in  the  ports  of 
Louisiana,  by  the  treaty  of  1803,  which  was  ratified  by  Congress  accord- 
ing to  the  terms  required  by  the  constitution  ;  yet  the  system  of  legislation 
.was  then  the  same  as  at  present.  Besides,  the  intercourse  between  nations 
is  not  legulatcd  by  the  legislation  of  any  one,  but  by  treaties.  The  com- 
mercial privileges  claimed  by  France  were  founded  on  express  stipulations 
in  a  treaty  formally  made;  and  if  that  treaty  were  to  be  modified,  such 
modificaiion  could  only  be  made  with  the  consent  of  both  the  parties  to  it. 

It  is  therefore  evident  that  France  had  a  right  to  demand  reparation  of 
the  injury  sustained  by  its  commerce,  in  consequence  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Federal  Government.  The  difficulty  consisted  in  finding  some  way  in 
which  this  reparation  could  be  conveniently  made.  Generally,  when  repa- 
ration or  compensation  is  demanded,  ^ome  material  loss  has  been  sustained, 
some  object  has  been  destroyed.  But  here  the  case  is  different.  The  loss 
sustained  by  the  French  merchants  was  of  the  opportunity  of  trading  advan- 
tageously with  Louisiana  ;  and  that  which  is  to  be  estimated  is  an  eventual 
benefit,  which  there  is  no  ])ositive  mode  of  appreciating.  The  United 
States,  in  order  to  resolve  tljis  difficulty,  consented  ta  a  considerable  reduc- 
tion in  the  duties  on  French  wines  in  all  their  ports  for  the  ensuing  ten 
years — a  concession  which  has  already  proved  highly  advantageous  to  the 
exportation  of  our  wines.  The  reparatioiv  is  of  the  same  character  with 
the  daniage  sustained  ;  profits  are  to  be  made  in  compensation  for  those 
wiiich  have  not  been  made.  The  transaction  is  favorable  to  our  foreign 
commerce,  which  only  wants  opportunity  of  extension,  to  become  flourish- 
ing. The  United  States  now  offer  the  most  advantageous  market  for  the 
products  of  our  soil  and  industry. 

We  have  one  last  observation  to  make  on  this  important  head.  The 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  has  told  us  that,  from  the  researches  he  lias 
made,  the  duties  paid  by  Freuch  commerce  exceed  by  400,000  francs  the 
sum  which  would  have  been  paid  had  France  been  treated  on  the  footing 
of  the  most  favored  nation  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  commerce  of  France,  in  consequence  of  the  reduction  in  the  duties  on 
our  wines,  allowed  since  the  treaty  of  1831,  has  gained  1,200,000  francs. 
So  the  loss  of  which  France  complained,  has  already  been  well  compen- 
sated. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  419 

Of  the  25,000,000  francs  allowed  as  indemnification,  1,500,000  francs 
remain  in  the  hands  of  the  French  Government.  This  sum  is  destined  lo 
satisfy  the  claims  presented  hy  France,  in  favor  of  its  citizens,  or  of  the  pub- 
lic Ticasury,  either  for  articles  supplied  long  since,  and  accounts  the  set- 
tlement of  which  had  been  reserved,  or  for  seizures,  captures,  detention  and 
illegal  destruction  of  vessels,  cargoes,  or  other  Frencli  propei-ty.  It  Is 
left  to  the  Government  to  examine  the  demands  for  indemniiication  made 
by  Frenchmen,  some  of  which  have  been  officially  communicated  to  your 
committee.  We  doubt  not  tliat  all  claims  fournled  in  justice  will  be  ad- 
mitted ;  such  is  the  duty  of  the  administration,  and  its  honor  and  justness 
are  interested  in  performing  it. 

You  have  submitted  to  your  committee  a  petition,  addressed  to  you  in 
the  name  of  the  members  of  the  Legion  of  Luxembourg,  by  Mr.  Briot, 
their  attorney.  They  declaie  the  United  States  indebted  to  them  for 
old  services,  and  that  they  have  on  different  occasions  made  fruitless 
endeavors  to  obtain  a  settlement  of  their  claims.  They  i»ow  propose  that 
you  should  insert  an  amendment  into  the  law,  in  their  favor.  Your 
committee  could  not  enter  upon  the  examination  of  this  claim,  which  is 
accompanied  by  no  document.  As  to  tlie  amendment  j)roposed,  it  should 
not  be  taken  into  consideration  ;  by  adding  any  clause  whatever  to  a  treaty, 
the  Chamber  would  go  beyond  its  constitutional  limits.  Tliis  right  be- 
longs only  to  the  Executive.  The  Chamber  has  the  light  to  refuse  the 
appropriations  necessary  for  carrying  into  effect  a  treaty  which  may 
appear  to  endanger  the  dignity  and  interest  of  France,  or  to  graiit  sucli 
a|)pro])riations  if  the  treaty  be  evidently  concluded  according  lo  the  rules 
of  justice,  and  for  the  real  advantage  of  the  country. 

We  have  now  to  examine  the  main  question  in  its  most  important  cha- 
racter, that  is,  in  its  political  and  commercial  points  of  view.  The  treaty 
of  1831  has  effaced  the  last  traces  of  misunderstanding  between  two 
free  nations,  the  Governments  of  which  have  the  same  origin,  which  have 
no  rivalship  as  to  their  respective  interests,  and  wiiich  should  be  united  by 
the  same  jwlitical  views.  This  good  understanding  will  be  productive  of 
hapj)y  results  for  both  nations,  at  present  and  in  future.  Tliey  stand  in 
need  of  each  other,  and  the  natural  alliance  of  nations  is  principally  found- 
ed on  community  of  feelings  and  interests. 

The  United  States  are  not  in  a  situation  tocan-y  on  manufiictureSy  so  as 
to  compete  with  those  of  Europe,  and  especially  of  France.  The  high 
price  of  labor,  tiie  want  of  proj)er  habits  for  such  pui'suits,  and  the  ease 
with  which  they  may  obtain  the  products  of  a  fertile  soil  of  almost  unlimit- 
ed extent,  must  long  prevent  them  from  submitting  to  the  irksome  and 
steady  labors  of  maimfacturers.  They  will  long  continue  to  seek  in  agri- 
culture and  foreign  trade  that  wealth  and  that  power  which  are  at  pre- 
sent the  most  undoubted  tests  of  the  welfare  of  societies,  and  the  strength 
of  States. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Americans,  without  being  artists,  are  fond  of  the 
aits;  and,  without  being  manufacturers,  sock  for  the  more  beautiful  pro- 
ducts of  industry.  Bronzes,  marbles,  the  costly  furniture  of  our  Parisian 
workshops,  our  jewelry,  carpets,  porcelain,  silks,  &c.  find  in  the  United 
States  a  daily  increasing  mai-ket.  The  Americans  consume  our  wines 
and  brandies  ;  they  adopt  our  fashions,  and  dress  in  our  stuffs.  The  city 
of  Lyons  alone  sent  them  last  year  silks  to  the  value  of  fifty  millions 


420  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

of  fi-aiics.  And  we,  in  return,  receive  the  raw  material  which  we  want, 
and  which,  after  having  been  worked  up,  again  crosses  the  ocean  ;  and 
thus  is  a  constant  interchange  maintained,  to  tiic  great  advantage  of  bot!i 
countries. 

Scarcely  had  the  ratifications  of  the  treaty  of  1831  been  exchanged, 
wlien  the  American  Government  carried  into  effect  the  clause  relating  to 
the  reduction  of  duty  on  our  wines  ;  it  granted  free  entry  to  French  silks, 
by  keeping  up  a  discriminating  duty  of  ten  per  cent,  on  those  inij)orted 
from  China,  atid  has  ever  since  that  j)eriod  manifested,  on  all  occasions, 
the  intention  of  establishing  the  most  intimate  commercial  relations  wit!i 
France.  The  utility  ofthe.se  relations  is  generally  appreciated  in  our 
manufacturing  cities  and  maritime  ports.  Since  1830,  the  exportation  of 
wines  and  manufactures  has  considerably  increased  ;  a  fact  interesting  to 
our  agriculture  and  industry,  which  has  had  considerable  effect  on  the  de- 
Hberations'of  your  committee.  The  Americans  undoubtedly  participate 
in  the  advantages  of  this  increase  of  trade,  but  that  very  circumstance  is 
sufficient  to  ensure  its  extension  and  long  duration.  There  is  nothing  left 
at  present,  which  can  give  rise  to  mistrust  or  jealousy  betueen  France  and 
the  United  States.  The  two  nations,  whose  fraternal  flags  have  waved  in 
triumph  over  the  same  battle-field,  for  the  same  cause,  should  look  on  the 
progress  of  each  other  with  satisfaction,  and  advance  hand  in  hand  in  the 
way  to  social  jjcrfection.  Such  is  the  only  rivalship  which  should  exist  be- 
tween them. 

From  the  considerations,  whicii  I  have  successively  indicated,  and 
which  are  submitted  for  your  impartial  examination,  your  committee  pro- 
pose the  adoption  of  the  following 

BILL. 

Art.  1.  The  Minister  of  Finance  is  authorized  to  take  the  necessary 
measures  for  carrying  into  effect  the  first  and  second  articles  of  the  trea- 
ty signed  on  the  4th  of  July,  1831,  between  the  King  of  the  French  and 
the  United  States  of  America,  the  ratifications  whereof  were  exchanged 
at  Washington  on  the  2d  of  February,  1832,  according  to  which  the  snm 
of  twenty-five  millions  of  francs  is  to  be  paid  by  France. 

Art.  2.  The  Minister  of  Finance  shall  provide  for  the  execution  of  the 
arrangements  resulting  from  the  third  and  fourth  articles  of  said  treaty,  by 
which  the  United  States  engage  to  pay  to  France  1,500.000  francs,  in  or- 
der to  free  themselves  from  all  the  claims  of  French  citizens  or  of  the  pub- 
lic Treasury.  The  disposal  and  distribution  of  the  above  sum  shall  be  the 
object  of  a  special  account  of  debtor  and  creditor  in  the  budgets  of  the 
State. 


DEBATES. 
Friday,  March  28,  1834.  ' 

The  President  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies. 

Gentlemen  :  The  order  of  the  day  is  the  discussion  of  the  projet  de 
loi,  for  carrying  into  execution  the  treaty  of  July  4,  1831,  between 
France  and  the  United  States. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  421 

M.  EoissY  d'Anglas. 

GentlLMTien  :  If  tlie  treaty  subniiticd  to  tis  offered  any  real  advan- 
tages for  France,  if  it  were  established  on  |;rincij>lcs  of  justice  and  reci- 
procity, I  should  not  oppose  the  bill  now  before  you  ;  but  as  I  find  in  it 
none  of  tliose  charactcis,  I  think  that  we  should  not  agree  to  the  payment 
of  an  enormous  sum,  which  Ihc  uiifortimatc  situation  of  oi;r  iinanees  does 
not  allow  us  to  part  with  gratuitously. 

The  resistance  made  by  the  Restoration  to  these  claims  sliould  I'endei* 
us  extrenu'ly  cautious  with  respect  to  ti)em  :  if  the  late  Government,  sub- 
mitting as  it  did  to  the  other  immense  demands  made  by  foreigners, 
always  refused  to  allow^  those  of  the  United  States,  how  can  we  accept  a 
chas'ge  of  which  even  it  would  never  acknowledge  the  justice  ? 

Tlirec  times,  as  you,  gentlemen,  all  know,  has  the  Government  proposed 
to  you  the  bill  wliicli  we  arc  now  discussing ;  and  1  frankly  avow  that  the 
reasons  advanced  in  its  favor  by  the  Minister  of  Finance,  on  the  6th  of 
April,  18S3,  instead  of  convincing  me  of  the  propriety  of  the  treaty,  have 
demonstrated  the  contrary  to  my  satisfaction.  It  is  only  by  the  report  of 
our  honorable  colleague,  M.  Jay.  that  v.e  can  learn  tlic  true  state  of  the 
question  ;  1  render  all  justice  to  the  labors  of  the  committee,  and  to  the 
luminous  explarsations  which  it  has  made  :  but  I  think  that  conclusions 
may  be  drawn  from  them  of  a  nature  entirely  contrary  to  those  which 
it  has  adopted. 

The  Ministei-  of  Finance,  in  his  reasons  for  adopting  the  bill,  expressly 
acknowledges  *•  that  however  rigorous  the  decrees  <d' Berlin,  Milan,  and 
liambouillet  may  have  been,  and  however  j)j-ejudicial  to  the  commerce  of 
neutrals,  they  were  nothing  more  than  reprisals  against  the  orders  in 
couiicil  of  the  British  Admiralty  ;  that  the  United  States,  on  their  part,  had 
in  1809  ordered,  by  way  of  reprisal  against  France  and  England,  the  con- 
liscatiou  of  all  vessels  of  France,  England,  and  of  some  otiier  countries, 
whicii  should  enter  their  j}oits,  as  also  of  all  j)ro(hictsof  thesoilor  iinhistr'y  of 
France  and  England,  hroii^litintn  Ihe.  United  States  by  vessels  nf  (inif  nation 
ivhatevp.r.  Tiie  adoptioji  of  such  measures  totally  changed  the  position  of 
the  United  States  with  regard  to  their  complaints  ai)out  the  Bei-lin,  Milan, 
and  Raml)i>ui!let  deci'ces  ;  and  the  Federal  Government,"  adds  the  Min- 
ister of  Fiiiance,  '<  by  endeavoring  to  do  ilself  justice,  had  lost  its  right 
to  indemnification  for  seizuscs  made  in  virtue  of  these  decreees." 

Your  committee,  gentlemen,  has  formally  recognised  this  same  pi'inciplc  : 
its  report  says,  '*  Napoleon,  for  his  own  (iefence,  was  forced  to  mak«  just 
i-eprisals,  and  to  exercise  a  rigiit  paramount  ovei'  all  others — the  supi-emc 
right  of  necessity."  And  again  :  "  In  examining  tiiC  ])rogre5>s  oftliis  new 
maritime  code,  it  is  evident  that  Fi-ance  did  not  pi-ovoke  its  dispositions, 
but  received  them  ready  made  from  England." 

So  ytuj  see  tliut,  after  such  a  recognition  of  the  ''igorous  rights  of  war, 
France  was  foi'ced  to  employ  reprisals  wlwch  had  been  ])rovoke(!  by  its 
enemies,  and  imposed  by  necessity.  NYe  may  well  as!i,  after  tliis,  how  our 
Government  could  iiavc  siibjected  itself  to  t!ic  payment  of  twenty-fivo 
millions  to  the  United  States,  xvhich  confiscated  our  vessels,  and  the 
productions  of  our  soil  and  industry  in  vessels  of  whatsoever  nation  tfieij 
may  have  been  introduced  into  -.Imerica. 

Other  natiojis  at  war  with  France  made  use  of  measures  with  j-cgard  to  the 
United  States  no  less  rigorous  than  tliose  prescribed  by  the  said  decrees,  and 


422  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

no  less  projudicial  to  their  commerce,  and  in  like  manner  confiscated  llicir 
vessels  and  cai-goes,  by  way  of  reprisals.  From  tliesc  nations  tlie  Federal 
Government  lias  demanded  nothing,  because  it  recognised,  witli  respect 
to  them,  the  principles  and  consequences  of  a  mutual  com|)ensation.  Why 
should  we  not  claim  tlie  same  right,  since  the  Restoration  so  successfully 
used  it  in  repelling  unjust  exactions  ? 

If  our  Government  be  destined  to  submit  to  injustice  from  a  nation  which 
owes  its  very  existence  to  the  genei'osity  of  the  French  ;  if  we  have  not  in- 
voked a  sacred  right,  which  the  Federal  Government  has  respected  in 
others  ;  if  we  arc  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  again  passing,  as  in  1815, 
under  the  fnrcai  cmulings  of  all  nations,  a  treaty  based  upon  the  most 
rigorous  justice  can  at  most  oblige  us  to  pay  only  the  excess  of  the  injury 
received  from  us  by  this  nation,  wiiich  forgets  that  its  independence  was 
bought  by  the  blood  and  treasui-e  of  France.  It  is  only  after  an  exact  com- 
parison of  tlieir  losses  with  tliose  which  we  have  sustained  from  tliem,  that 
it  can  be  known  whether  or  not  we  ai'e  their  debtors.  The  Government 
should  Iiave  made  such  a  comparison  befoi-e  it  subscribed  to  a  losing 
tj'cafy.  Your  committee  was  aware  of  tlj«  force  of  this  objection  ;  its 
repoi-ter  has  informed  us  of  the  investigations  into  which  it  entered;  and 
we  seetJiat,  in  order  to  determine  tlie  United  States  to  declare  war  against 
England,  and  to  encourage  them  in  their  endeavors  to  support  it.  the  Em- 
peror Napo!e(m  did  attend  to  the  claims  advanced  by  the  Federal  Govei-n- 
nient,  and  that  negotiations  wei-e  begun  in  1812  witli  his  Minister  of  Fo- 
reign Aflaij'S. 

But  that  wliich  was  then  the  effect  of  his  far-reaching  policy,  and  after- 
wards the  result  of  the  sad  necessity  in  which  lie  had  been  placed  by  his 
dreadful  reverses,  carmot  now  be  alleged  as  a  reason  for  paying  a  sum 
twice  as  great  as  then  admitted,  wilhotit  taking  into  account  the  losses 
suffered  by  us,  and  for  which  we  have  on  our  part  to  demand  satisfaction. 

The  re[)oi"t  presented  to  the  Empert)r  Napoleon  by  the  Minister  of  Fo- 
reign Affairs,  on  the  11th  of  January,  1814,  (recollect  the  date  and  the 
disasters  of  that  period,)  declai-es  that  nothing  is  due  on  account  of  vessels 
seized  in  virtue  of  the  15erlin  and  Milan  decrees,  and  that  the  indemnifi- 
cations for  vessels  seized  after  their  revocation  may  amount  lo  lliirteeu 
millions.  It  is  true,  the  minister  admitted  that,  making  a  higher  estimate 
of  the  values  of  the  vessels  and  cargoes,  tiiis  sum  might  be  raised  to 
eighteen  millions. 

Tlie  Ciiambcr  will  not  be  deceived  as  to  the  real  motive  whicli,  in  1814. 
induced  this  minister  to  piopose  such  a  sacrifice  to  Napoleon,  in  order  to 
engage  the  United  States  in  a  war  with  Great  Britain  :  he  yielded  to  the 
dire  necessity  in  which  his  disasters  had  placed  him,  for,  as  the  reporter 
observes,  the  last  hour  was  come:  but  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  con- 
clude, from  this,  tliat  the  Imperial  Government  renounced  the  principle  of 
compensation,  to  which  the  right  of  I'eprisal  had  given  origin.  This  is 
proved  by  the  fact  that  nothing  was  said  at  the  time  about  alleging,  in  op- 
position, the  claims  of  French  merchants,  on  account  of  the  confiscations 
or  destruction  of  their  vessels,  made  by  virtue  of  the  resolution  of  the 
Federal  Government,  or  by  its  infraction  of  the  treaty  of  1803. 

I  acknowledge  with  the  committee,  that  if  the  Government  «f  the-  Re- 
storation had  opposed  the  demands  of  the  United  States  on  no  other 
grounds  than  that  they  were  not  called  upon  to  repair  injuries  caused  by 
the  acts  of  the  Emperor,  it  would  have  been  in  the  wrong ;  but  its  re- 
sistance was  based  on  legitimate  motives,  the  justice  of  which  w^s  admit- 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  423 

ted  in  part  by  tlie  plenipotentiary  of  tlic  Federal  Government,  as  the  reporter 
informs  you — I  mean  tlie  infraction  of  (lie  8th  article  of  the  Louisiana  tri'aty. 
If  to  this  be  added  the  amount  of  losses  sustained  by  our  commerce,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  political  measures  of  the  United  States,  I  could  prove  tliat  the 
treaty  of  1831  cannot  receive  your  assent:  for  this  1  need  not  recur  to  the  acts 
and  protocols  of  the  Govcrnn»ent  of  the  Restoration  ;  I  have  only  to  repeat 
the  words  of  the  Minister  of  Finance,  in  his  reasons  already  cited.  He 
says,  "that,  besides  its  just  claims  on  account  of  losses,  and  the  pecuniary 
demands  of  various  soi'ts,  njade  by  Fiench  citizens,  on  the  Federal  Go- 
vcriiment,  France  had  yet  to  obtain  satisfaction  respecting  tiie  8th  article  of 
the  treaty  of  cession  of  Louisiana, which  secured  to  our  navigation  in  thci)orts 
oC-that  part  of  the  Union  the  treatn)ent  of  the  most  favored  nation  ;  of  which 
advantage  it  was  deprived  by  the  refusal  to  give  the  same  privileges  which 
were,  by  the  treaty  of  1814,  assigned  to  the  English."  Tims,  gentlemen, 
although  we  may  believe  that  we  cannot  require  that  mutual  c(nnpetisation, 
"vvhich  tlie  state  of  hostility  has  legitimated  ;  altliongli  we  may  admit  the 
basis  wiiicii  tiie  Imperial  Government  ajipcarcd  willing  to  acknowledge, 
when  near  its  downfall,  in  order  to  j)reservc  the  support  of  the  United 
States  against  England,  yet  must  we  allow  t.'iat  from  these  thirteen  mil- 
lions are  to  be  deducted  the  losses  of  Fi'cnch  vessels,  and  the  damages  i-e- 
sulting  from  the  infraction  of  the  treaty  of  1803. 

Those  are  rights,  gentlemen,  which  establish  the  most  just  demands  ; 
rights  which  should  have  formed  the  basis  of  the  negotiations,  and  which 
we  are  now  precluded  fi'om  advancing,  by  tlic  intervention  of  the  treaty. 
In  my  opinion,  the  claims  founded  on  them  would  exceed  those  of  the 
United  States  ;  and  wer-e  the  latter  even  just,  their  amount  cannot  be 
placed  in  competition  with  the  loss  of  the  advantages  of  the  8th  article  of 
the  tixaty  of  1803. 

The  Federal  Government  demanded  fi-om  France  indemnification  for 
American  vessels  seized,  confiscated,  or  bui-nt  at  sea,  (hn'ing  the  war  of 
the  revolution.  Your  committee  acknowledges  that  the  Im|)erial  Govern- 
ment had  adopted  measures  as  violent  as  the  laws  of  war  j-cqiiii-ed,  In  re- 
taliation fiir  those  adopted  by  the  er.iemy. 

If  the  United  States  believed  they  had  a  right  to  indemnification  by 
France,  they  should  have  participated,  in  1815,  in  those  disgraceful  trea- 
ties which  Europe  imposed  uj)om  her  :  they  would  then  have  obtained  their 
part  of  the  thousand  millions  which  her  enemies  appropriated  to  them- 
selves. They  did  not  do  so,  because  they  saw,  even  at  that  sad  jicriod, 
that  such  a  claim  was  unfounded. 

In  fact,  gentlemen,  you  have  seen,  in  the  re[»ort  of  your  committee,  that 
an  in;pei-ial  decree  of  the  5lh  of  August,  1810,  rev(dved  conditionally 
those  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  and  was  to  have  eftect  from  the  1st  of  No- 
vember following,  if  the  British  Government  repealed  its  orders  of  block- 
ade, or  if  the  United  States  should  have  caused  tlicir  indejjendence  to  be 
respected.  Tliat  event  happened,  and  ])Ut  an  end  to  reciprocal  acts  of 
hostility.  If  the  Federal  Government  believed  their  I'ight  to  indemnifica- 
tion just,  it  should  have  made  it  the  condition  of  a  retui-ti  to  reciproc;'.l 
relations  of  good  intelligence  ;  by  not  doing  so,  it  imposed  on  itself  the 
obligation  to  demand  nothing  in  future. 

After  an  acknowledgment,  which  I  regard  as  formal,  of  their  abandon- 
ment of  evei*y  demand,  ic  is  to  be  believed  that,  if  the  United  States  had 
not  forgotten  the  immense  sacrifices  made  by  France  to  secure  their 
independence,  they  would  remember  the  misfortunes  which  she  drew  upon 


424  t  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

herself  by  taking  up  arms  to  defend  the  American  insurrection  :  they 
would  have  recollected  that  eveiits  long  past  had  been  jri-oductive  jof 
losses  to  those  whom  they  affected,  and  they  would  have  endeavored  to 
make  us  ibrget  those  sacrifices  and  niislbrtunes  which  are  beyond  indemni- 
fication. If,  laying  aside  such  weighty  considerations,  we  arc  foi-ccd  to  con- 
fine ourselves  to  tlic  treaty  which  is  submitted  to  us,  v,  hat,  gentlemen,  do  we 
inid  there  ?  Twenty-five  millions  to  pay  ;  the  loss  of  the  advantages  oi' 
the  treaty  of  1803  ;  and  a  diminution  in  the  duties  on  long  staple  cottons. 

What  do  they  offer  in  remuneration  ?  1 ,500,000  francs,  as  an  indem- 
nification for  pecuniary  claims,  and  a  diminution  of  import  duty  upon  our 
wines  for  ten  years. 

Can  any  one  discover,  in  such  stipulations,  that  reciprocity  of  advan- 
tages which  the  Government  announces?     Certainly  not,  gentlemen. 

In  the  first  place,  our  pecuniaiy  claims,  which  I  consider  as  important 
as  the  value  of  American  ships  lost,  are  fixed  at  so  low  a  rate,  compared 
with  their  real  importance,  that  it  appears  to  rae  shameful  to  accept  it. 
Upon  what  basis  was  it  settled  ?  Upon  what  documents  was  it  deter- 
mined ?  The  Government  communicated  to  your  committee  those  rela- 
tive to  the  claims  of  the  United  States  ;  but  they  did  not  communicate  a 
statement  of  the  losses  sustained  by  our  commerce.  This  1,60Q,000  op- 
posed to  25,000,000  to  pay,  is  of  trifling  importance.  Under  what  as- 
pect must  it  be  considered,  when  it  appears  certain  to  me  that  the  losses 
sustained  by  our  commerce  Avould  equal  those  of  the  Americans  ?  If  to 
this,  you  add  the  amount  of  the  damage  for  the  time  we  have  been  de- 
prived of  the  advantages  which  were  secured  to  us  by  tke  treaty  of  1803, 
you  will  find  that  France  gives  25  millions  for  nothing. 

In  the  second  place,  gentlemen,  what  is  the  diminution  during  ten 
years  only  upon  the  duties  of  our  wines,  when  compared  with  the  aban- 
donment forever  of  the  advantages  w'hieh  the  treaty  of  1803  secured  to 
us,  added  to  that  from  the  diminution  in  the  duties  paid  in  -France  upon 
long  staple  cottons  ?  I  hope  to  be  deceived,  gentlemen  ;  but  if  you  accept 
the  proposed  law",  the  diminution  of  duties  upon  the  entry  of  our  wines 
will  soon  suffer  the  same  fate  with  the  stipulation  in  the  treaty  of  libera- 
tion with  Hayti,  which  was  withdrawn  the  day  after  it  was  promised. 
I  do  not  count  upon  a  sincere  execution  of  that  promise,  which  in  one  or 
two  years  will  be  to  us  what  the  treaty  of  1803  has  proved. 

Thus  you  see,  gentlemen,  the  consequence  of  the  abandonment  of  that 
treaty  ;  it  deprives  us,  w'ithout  return,  of  the  illimitable  advantages  which 
were  secured  to  our  navigation  in  Louisiana,  and  assures  them  to  Eng- 
land. In  other  w^ords,  it  deprives  us  of  all  commerce  with  a  vast  country, 
vrhich  entertains  for  us  the  precious  remembrance  of  ancient  patronage, 
whose  inhabitants  have  the  same  customs  and  wants  with  ourselves ; 
whilst  it  will  be  impossible  for  us  to  compete  with  England,  which  vill 
enjoy  the  favors  renounced  by  us.  Those  advantages  for  our  commerce 
were  to  have  been  unlimited  and  perpetual ;  henceforward,  they  will  be 
limited  to  an  inconsiderable  consumption  of  one  of  our  products. 

By  the  treaty  of  1803,  France  had  secured  to  herself  a  market  for  all 
her  productions  in  competition  with  England.  By  that  which  is  now 
submitted  to  you,  you  lose  this  advantage,  and  you  renounce  forever  the 
establishment  of  any  other  commerce,  except  that  of  wines  for  a  limited 
time,  in  a  vast  country,  which  is  French  in  its  manners  and  inclinations. 
Can  you  discover  in  this  trifling  preference,  granted  to  one  of  your  pro- 
ductions, and  during  a  short  period,  a  just  indemnification  for  so  many 


[  Doc.   No.  2.  ]  .   425 

losses  ?  And,  moreover,  we  are  made  to  pay  twenty-five  millions  for  it, 
-besides  a  diminution  oi"  duty  upon  the  introduction  of  lotig  staple  cottons. 
.  I  have  hazarded  nothing,  gentlemen,  v.hen  1  asserted  that  the  treaty 
-which  is  submitted  to  you  does  not  olFer  the  reciprocity  of  advantages 
which  the  Minister  of  Finance  pretended.  1  go  further,  and  assure  you 
that  the  introduction  of  the  products  of  our  vineyards,  upon  which  those 
advantages  are  estimated,  is  an  illusion  ;  that,  if  it  continues  with  the  same 
results  as  down  to  the  present  time,  it  will  become,  on  the  contrary,  an 
onerous  charge.  You  have  seen  that  the  7th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1831 
stipulates  for  this  introduction  upon  a  tariff  of  reduced  duties  ;  but  it  stipu- 
lates, also,  that  France  shall  establish  the  same  duty  upon  the  long  staple 
cottons  of  the  United  States,  as  upon  tiie  short  staple. 
;  In  reading  the  report  of  your  committee,  I  observed  Ihat  they  assert 
that  the  diminution  of  the  duties  of  importation  upon  wines  will  be  an 
advantage  to  the  French  commerce  of  1,20C,000  francs. 

An  authentic  document,  which  is  your  own  work,  goes  to  demonstrate 
not  only  that  the  French  commerce  cannot  count  on  this  brilliant  advan- 
tage, but  that  the  difference  of  duties  paid  on  the  introduction  of  long 
staple  cottons  absorbs  and  exceeds  it. 

It  results  from  the  report  made  by  my  honorable  friend  and  colleague, 
M.  Pelet  de  la  Lozere,  in  the  name  of  the  Committee  on  Supplementary 
Credits,  that  the  Government  has  demanded,  and  you  have  granted,  a 
sum  of  80,000  francs,  to  reimburse  the  United  States  for  the  extra  duties 
paid  on  long  staple  cottons,  since  the  ratification  of  the  new  treaty,  more 
than  had  been  returned  on  our  wines.  Permit  me  to  read  this  part  of 
the  report  of  my  honorable  colleague. 

''  This  article  is  connected  with  the  treaty  with  the  United  States  of 
the  4th  July,  1831.  Stipulations  have  been  made  in  this  treaty,  inde- 
pendent of  the  indemnification  of  25  millions  to  the  credit  of  the  United 
States,  from  which  are  to  be  dedncted  1,600,000  francs  to  the  benefit  of 
France,  for  the  reciprocal  advantage  of  the  commerce  of  the  two  countries. 
The  United  States  had  engaged  to  reduce  the  duties  on  the  wines  of 
France  ;  and  France  had  engaged  not  to  exact  a  higher  duty  upon  long 
staple  cottons  than  upon  short  staple.  The  treaty  was  to  take  effect  upon 
the  exchange  of  ratifictitions,  which  exchange  took  place  at  Washington  the 
2d  February,  1832.  But  between  the  date  of  the  ratilication  of  the  treaty 
and  the  time  when  it  became  known  in  the  ports  of  the  two  countries,  the 
duties  were  collected  both  on  wines  and  cottons  according  to  the  old 
tariff.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  made  a  deduction  of 
tbe  difference  upon  the  wines  of  France  since  the  ratification,  and  caused 
the  same  to  be  restored.  They  ask  the  same  restitution  for  their  cottons 
in  favor  of  their  commerce.  It  appears  to  be  but  just.  It  is  to  cover 
this  expenditure  that  the  sum  of  80,000  francs  is  demanded. 

"  The  committee  proposes  to  allow  this  credit ;  but  with  the  under- 
standing that  nothing  is  to  be  considered  as  thereby  predetermined  (pre- 
juge)  with  regard  to  the  treaty.  This  treaty  consists  of  two  parts  en- 
tirely distinct;  one  relates  to  indemnification  claimed  by  the  United 
States  for  injuries  done  to  their  commerce  by  the  execution  of  the  de- 
crees of  Berlin  and  Mih\n  ;  the  other  relates  to  the  custom-house  duties 
collected  in  the  two  countries. 
28 


426  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

"The  latter  part  is  of  the  nature  of  a  commercial  treaty  ;  and  its  execu^ 
tion  is  commenced,  whilst  the  other  is  in  suspense.  The  treaty  as  a  whole, 
instead  of  taking  effect  from  the  date  of  its  ratifications,  can  only  do  so 
from  the  date  of  tlie  law  ^^hich  maybe  passed  by  the  Chamber. 

"On  this  occasion,  the  nature  of  our  Government  and  of  the  constitu- 
tion seems  to  liave  been  forgotten.  And  we  are  ])resented  with  the  anomaly 
of  a  ti'eaty,  part  of  which  is  being  executed,  while  the  remainder  is  under 
discussion." 

Thus,  gentlemen,  by  the  anticipated  and  perhaps  illegal  execution  of  a 
treaty,  which,  if  properly  considered,  is  at  variance  with  the  interests  of 
France,  the  difference  of  the  respective  duties  upon  wines  and  long  staple 
cottons  is  80,000  francs  to  our  loss.  How  can  it  be  supported  after  this 
authentic  fact,  that  France  should  promise  herself  any  great  advantage 
from  the  introduction  of  wines  in  the  United  States,  when  tiie  diminution 
of  the  duties  ui)on  the  long  staple  cottons  of  that  country  hr.d  made  so  great 
a  difference  to  our  disadvantage  during  the  last  year,  and  one  which  will 
increase  in  future  fiom  the  activity  of  our  manufactories  ? 

How  has  the  committee  discovered  an  advantage  of  1,200,000  francs, 
when  we  have  had  to  pay  80,000  francs  to  the  United  States  ?  Gentlemen,  I 
wish  to  believe  that,  when  performing  their  labor,  they  were  not  aware  of 
the  conscientious  report  of  our  honorable  colleague,  for  if  they  had  known 
it,  they  would  not  have  presented  to  us  hopes  which  your  vote  upon  the 
required  appropriation  of  80,000  francs  has  annihilated. 

However,  gentlemen,  do  not  apprehend  that  you  have  bound  yourselves 
by  the  restitution  you  have  decreed.  The  Committee  of  Supj)lementary 
Credits  has  wisely  protested  against  the  induction  that  might  be  drawn 
from  this  execution  of  the  treaty  ;  and  you  have  declared  by  your  organ 
that  it  was  well  understood  that  it  was  not  to  be  considered  as  predetermin- 
ing any  thing  connected  with  this  treaty. 

^yithout  doubt,  gentlemen,  we  ought  to  avoid  alienating  the  affections  of 
the  American  Government ;  but  to  the  sacrifices  of  every  kind  which  France 
has  made  to  secure  her  existence,  shall  we  add  an  enormous  sum,  which 
the  disordered  state  of  our  finances  does  not  permit  us  to  give  gratuitously  ? 
Shall  we  take  from  our  citizens  the  price  of  their  labors,  to  pay  a  demand 
from  which  justice  absolves  us  ?  Shall  we  add  to  the  loaiis  which  we  have 
already  unfortunately  authorized,  a  new  loan  more  burdensome  still  ?  No, 
gentlemen,  we  cannot,  we  ought  not  to  do  it,  for  we  are  here  to  defend  the 
finances  of  the  country.  Wc  should  invoke  the  principles  of  justice,  under 
these  circumstances,  and  follow  the  example  of  the  Restoration,  which  re- 
fused to  yield  to  the  demands  of  the  Americans,  when  it  shamefully  sub- 
mitted to  those  of  all  the  petty  princes  of  Europe. 

To  ourselves,  we  should  have  reason  to  fear  that  France  may  i^epeat  the 
too  well  founded  reproach,  made  the  last  year  on  account  of  the  Greek 
loan,  of  our  distributing,  without  necessity  and  without  justice,  millions  to 
foreigners,  wlio  are  not  even  grateful  for  it. 

I  shall  vote  against  the  bill  which  is  now  before  you. 

General  Horace  Sebastiaivi,  [late  Minister  of  Foreign  affairs.] 
Gentlemen  :  If  it  were  enough  that  the  weighty  question  you  are  aUout 
to  decide  had  been  neatly  p!  opcunded,  accurately  studied,  all  its  details 
thoroughly  investigated,  and  all  its  doubtful  points  illustrated,  after  the 
ample  and  ^ell  drawn  report  read  to  you  in  the  name  of  your  committee,  I 
ought  to  be  silent  J  but  when  stipulations  ^^hich  1  have  signed,  when  en- 


f  Doc.  No.  2.  J  427 

gagements  wlilch  I  have  not  feared  to  subscribe  in  the  name  of  the  country, 
are  submitted  for  your  examination,  I  consider  myself  as  fulfilling  a  duty 
to  the  Chamber,  to  the  administration  I  have  had  the  honor  to  direct,  and 
perhaps  to  myself,  in  laying  before  you,  at  the  commencement  of  your  de- 
liberations, a  succinct  statement  of  the  principles  as  well  as  of  the  facts 
which  have  governed  my  conduct,  and  which  1  trust  will  secure  for  it  your 
assent  and  sanction. 

The  author  of  the  report,  in  expatiating,  as  he  has,  upon  the  origin 
of  our  disputes  with  the  United  States,  has  also  saved  me  from  the  most 
arduous  and  the  most  important  part  of  my  task  ;  for  the  mere  history  of 
the  difficulties  which  have  for  so  long  a  period  embarrassed  the  relations  of 
France  with  the  Government  of  the  Union,  is  at  once  the  plainest  and  best 
justification  of  the  act  by  which  those  embarrassments  have  been  removed. 

You  have  heard  that  narrative,  and  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  weary  yoit 
by  relating  wliat  is  well  known.  The  Cliamber  is  aware  that  the  claims 
of  the  United  States  date  back  more  tlian  twenty  years  ;  tiiat  they  originat- 
ed at  that  period  of  universal  conflict  w  hich  cost  the  people  of  Europe  so 
much  blood  and  treasure  :  the  Chamber  is  aware  with  what  blameable  and 
violent  measures  those  claims  are  connected,  and  how  those  measures  were 
characterized  by  the  very  power  which  oidered  them;  that  at  the  moment 
when  the  quarrel  of  which  the  Continent  had  until  then  been  the  scene, 
was  also  extended  to  the  ocean,  commerce  was  suddenly  expelled  to  give 
place  to  battles,  and  our  ally,  an  inoffensive  third  party,  suddenly  sur- 
prised between  two  lines  of  hostilities  and  reprisals,  received  blows  whicli 
were  not  aimed  at  her;  in  fine,  the  Chamber  is  aware  that  a  more  regular 
state  of  things  had  scarcely  permitted  the  Cabinets  of  Paris  and  Washing- 
ton to  restore  their  relations  to  their  former  footing,  w  hen  the  latter,  pro- 
testing against  the  acts  which  had  marked  the  late  struggle,  commenced 
its  demands  for  indemnification,  and  the  Imperial  Government,  acknow* 
ledging  the  justice  of  the  comj)laints  i)referrcd  against  it,  proceeded 
to  decide  upon  them,  and  to  negotiate  for  their  payment.  I  will  not  revert 
to  those  facts,  the  correctness  of  which  the  author  of  the  report  has  settled, 
and  the  consequences  and  bearing  of  which  he  has  unfolded  while  examin- 
ing them. 

Before  speaking  of  the  negotiations  continued  by  the  King's  Government, 
I  will  say  a  few^  words  as  to  the  state  in  which  I  found  them. 

The  Imperial  Government — I  have  just  reminded  you,  gentlemen,  and  it 
is  material  that  you  should  not  forget  it,  for  that  opinion  has  served  as  our 
point  of  departure,  and  the  guaranty  of  our  cstimateof  the  American  claims — 
the  Imperial  Government  had  recognised  their  justice  at  least  in  part ;  and 
the  report  of  iM.  de  Caulaincourt  shows  that  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  millions 
were  to  have  been  offered  to  the  Government  of  the  Union  as  indemnification. 
But  the  Emperor  was  then  engaged  in  the  last  efforts  of  his  terrible  strug- 
gle, and  the  offer  was  not  followed  up,  because  of  his  increasing  disasters; 
he  fell,  leaving  to  the  country  the  debts  incurred  by  tlie  war.  You  know> 
gentlemen,  whether  France  lias  paid  them  dearly  or  not :  but  in  the  midst 
of  the  gloomy  reminiscences  of  that  disastrous  period,  there  is  one  of  a  dif- 
ferent character,  to  which  it  is  proper  I  should  advert ;  namely,  that  when 
all  the  allied  Powers  were  exacting  from  us  at  once  indemnifications  and 
contributions  to  so  great  an  amount,  the  United  States  alone  refused  to 
apply  for  their  claims  through  these  Powers,  and  to  unite  their  pecuniary 
demands  with  those  of  the  European  Coalition. 


428  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

As  soon  as  the  sforin  was  in  a  measure  calmed,  the  Cabinet  of  "Washing- 
ton renewed  to  llie  lloyal  Government  its  (Jcmaniis  for  indemnification 
The  first  note  of  the  American  minister  to  M.  dc  Richelieu  is  dated  in 
JiSiOvem'ocr,  1816.  JM.  de  E,ichelieu  liien  intimated,  that,  ctjnsidei-ing  tlie 
exhausted  state  of  the  Frcjich  finances,  a  lacit  poslponemeut  was  the  only 
way  to  reserve  the  rights  of  the  United  States  ;  and  when  that  minister 
asked  tiie  Chambers  lor  an  appropriation  of  seven  hundred  millions,  lie 
stated  that  it  was  fur  the  purpose  cf  settling  the  accounts  of  France  with 
iJie  European  Pavers  only.  This  was  in  pi-inciple  acknowledging  and 
expiessly  reserving  the  American  claims.  JNo  minister  has  since  dared 
to  retract  that  recognition,  although  more  than  one  may  have  discussed  its 
extent,  and  may  have  denied  the  entire  accountability  of  the  legitimate 
royalty  for  the  procecdiisgs  of  what  was  thesi  called  the  usurpation.  No 
minister  has  dared  explicitly  to  deny  the  debt ;  but  its  amount  remained 
unascertained.  Tlicrc  were,  besides,  other  grievances  to  be  redressed, 
other  claims  to  be  satisfred.  Such,  gentlemeii,  were  the  conllicting  pre- 
tensions on  both  sides,  sucli  the  multiplicity  of  incidental  matters  raised 
and  debated,  that,  after  fifteen  years  of  active,  continuous,  and  pressing 
negotiations,  pursued  with  ardor  by  three  successive  American  plenipoten- 
tiaries at  Paris,  the  basis  of  a  settlement  could  not,  ostensibly  at  least,  be 
agreed  upon. 

You  do  not  expect,  gentlemen,  that  I  should  trace  back  the  phases  and 
tlie  intricacies  of  those  abortive  negotiations;  that  I  should  acfjuaint  you 
under  what  personal  pi'e[)ossessions,  parliamentary  difficulties,  and  finan- 
cial embarrassments,  each  of  the  ministers  of  the  Restoration  treated  the 
American  question  ;  that  I  should  mention  which  of  them  sought  only  for 
plausible  pi-etexts  to  jjoHtjjoue  it,  and  to  leave  i!s  burden  to  their  succes- 
sors;  wiiich  of  them  met  it  in  a  njore  candid  spirit,  and  with  a  desire  to 
close  it ;  by  what  means,  and  at  what  pi-ice,  they  might  have  done  so,  or 
-what  were  tiie  difficulties  which  impeded  them.  This  is  not  the  place  for 
such  details,  and  those  who  may  be  curious  respecting  them  may  find  them 
in  the  diplomatic  ])apers  published  by  the  Government  of  the  Union.  Sut 
I  can,  and  it  is  my  duty  to  say,  that,  during  those  fifteen  yeais  of 
delays  and  procrastination,  the  question  had  made  such  ])rogress  in  the 
United  States,  it  had  excited  in  so  marked  a  manner  the  solicitude  of  Con- 
gress, it  had  become  so  much  a  national  and  a  political  question,  the  in- 
structions of  the  Cabinet  at  Washington  to  its  plenipotentiai-y  Isad  become 
so  firm  and  so  strenuous,  that  the  last  administration  of  the  fallen  dynasty, 
foreseeing  the  ])ossible  consejjuences  of  a  longer  delay,  and  of  a  denial  of 
acknowledged  justice,  began  seriously  to  inquire  how  those  difficulties 
might  be  terminated,  and  it  was  upon  the  point  of  an  arrangement  with 
the  American  minister  at  the  moment  of  its  overthrow. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  intentions  of  that  administration,  nothing 
3iad  been  decided  at  the  period  of  its  overthrow,  and  it  left  to  that  which 
succeeded  the  painful  inlieritancc  of  the  Imperial  Government,  aggra- 
vated too  by  the  embarrassments  and  even  by  the  increased  pecuniary 
burden  which  such  delays  may  have  occasioned. 

Such,  then,  gentlemen,  was  the  state  of  the  American  affairs  when  the 
^King's  Government  was  called  upon  to  take  them  up. 

On  the  one  iiand,  a  pecuniary  claim  to  be  divided  into  two  parts,  the 
lirst,  being  unquestionable,  constituted  against  us  a  debt  which  had  never 
been  controverted   in  principle ;  the  second,  liable  to  discussion,  offered 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  42& 

five  or  six  principal  classes  of  questionable  claims,  which  amounteil  to  about 
sixty  niillioMS.  Om  tlieotliei' hand,  two  States,  notiiral  allies,  by  tlieir  posi- 
tion and  mutual  wants,  which  the  great  event  wiiicii  Iiad  just  occurred  in 
France  tended  to  draw  nearer  to  eacli  other,  were  kept  in  an  attitude  of  sus- 
pense and  upon  the  eve  of  a  rupture.  That  is  to  say,  gentlemen,  we 
have  on  the  one  hand  a  question  of  money,  in  which  the  loyalty  and  the 
economy  of  the  Government  were  at  once  interested,  since  they  related  to  a 
debt  recognised  in  ])art ;  and,  on  tlie  otiier  hand,  a  national  question,  iu 
whicii  the  interests  of  our  commerce  and  of  our  policy  were  concerned. 
Sucli  is  at  least  tiic  double  aspect  under  which  the  negotiation  with  the 
United  States  has,  from  the  begiiuiing,  presented  itself  to  the  King's  Go- 
vernment; sucli  is  the  double  solicitude  under  tisc  influence  of  which  thai. 
Government  has  uniformly  conducted  tiie  negotiation. 

To  those  who  may  nevertheless  be  of  opinion  that  the  claims  of  the 
Americans  should  be  denied,  who  would  !*epudiate  our  liability  for  the  acts 
of  the  Imperial  Government,  and  on  the  day  after  a  revolution  efTected 
in  the  name  of  the  law,  maintain,  in  contemi)t  of  national  morality,  tliat  to 
release  itself  from  its  debts,  a  State  has  only  to  change  its  sovereign  j 
even  to  tiiose  who  may  think  that,  without  formally  pronouncing  this,  it 
was  expedient  to  proti-act  indermitcly  a  discussion  of  the  claims  \\hich  had 
been  carried  on  for  fifteen  years — to  such  persons,  gentlemen,  I  do  not 
deem  it  incumbent  upon  me  to  reply ;  and  the  Chamber  will  attribute  my 
silence  to  projier  motives. 

AVith  respect  to  those  who  think  that  it  is  to  the  interest  and  dignity  of 
the  country,  as  v.ell  as  the  duty  of  the  Goveriimcnt,  to  ascertain  and  set- 
tle the  debt,  and  who  w(nild  only  investigate  the  manner  in  which  that 
duty  has  been  performed,  they  have  hoard  tlje  conclusions  of  the  commit- 
tee, and  the  amj)le  discussions  on  which  they  were  founded.  I  have 
promised  not  to  retisrn  to  this  ground,  gentlemen,  and  I  only  wish  here  to 
revert  to  a  single  result,  at  whicli  the  Governsnent  has  arrived  in  the 
course  of  its  researches  ;  namely,  that  the  strictest  calculations  allowed  by 
the  nature  of  tiie  subject,  calculations  based  upon  a  collection  of  data  the 
most  disadvantageous  to  the  United  States,  here  alTordcd,  as  the  amount 
of  the  indcmniiication  closely  reckoned,  a  sum  exceeding  by  several  mil- 
lions that  which  has  been  stipulated. 

Once  enlightened  as  to  the  basis  and  the  extent  of  the  debt,  the  King's 
Government  proposed  to  that  of  the  Union  an  arrangement  analogous  to 
those  which  usually  terminate  differences  of  this  soi't  between  nations — an 
arrangement  by  which  the  amount  (ivx  in  strict  justice  gives  place  to  an 
equitable  compromise  ;  that  is  to  say,  a  compromise  for  a  certain  sum,  be 
the  claims  for  more  or  less,  in  consideration  of  wliich  France  should  be 
at  once  and  forever  rc\ie\ei\  from  all  demands  preferred  against  her  by 
American  citizens.  An  indemnification  of  tsventy-five  millions  was  of- 
fered ;  and  after  rather  a  protracted  resistance  on  thejjart  of  the  American 
plenipotentiary,  who  refused  to  allow  the  pretensiojis  he  had  at  first  raised 
to  be  so  much  reduced,  this  sum  was  accepted,  and  was  inserted  in  the 
treaty  which  is  this  day  submitted  for  your  approval.  I  will  not  inquire, 
as  some  have,  whether  this  sum  is,  or  is  not,  the  very  lowest  with 
which  we  could  have  satisfied  creditors  tired  with  twenty  yeai-s  of  often 
desperate  solicitation  ;  it  would  be  rejnignant  to  my  sense  of  honor  to- 
follow  upon  that  ground  certain  insinuations  not  remarkable  for  their  de- 
licacy. I  shall  content  myself  with  saying  that  I  am  convinced  we  were- 
bound  in  equity  tj  offer  that  sum. 


430  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

I  do  not  scruple  to  proclaim  aloud  from  this  (ribunc,  gentlemen,  tliat 
after  France  had  acknowledged  the  justice  of  a  debt,  it  was  unworlhy  of 
lier  to  reduce  it  at  the  expense  of  good  failii,  and,  like  a  dishonest  debtor,  to 
endeavor,  by  chicanery,  to  lessen  its  just  amount.  [Mui'ks  of  approbation.] 
I  have  believed,  and  I  still  believe,  that  if  it  behoves  a  great  nation  to  be 
frugal  in  its  expenditures,  it  behoves  it  still  more  to  be  jealous  of  its  honor; 
and  that  in  a  matter  of  public  policy,  as  well  as  in  private  business,  a  minis- 
ter of  the  King  should  conduct  himself  like  an  honest  man.  [Marks  of  ap- 
•probation.]  I  have  also  believed,  that  having,  at  a  period  of  difficulty  and 
•distress,  paid  so  liberally  our  debts  to  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  we  should 
not,  immediately  after  those  days  which  have  elevated  our  country  to  so 
liigh  a  stand,  reject  an  old  debt  to  a  nation,  which  had  right  on  its  side, 
which  our  misfoitunes  only  prevented  from  being  incessant  in  the  pursuit 
of  that  right,  and  of  the  noble  forbcaratice  of  which  i-egenerated  France 
ought  not  to  be  unmindful.  I  thought  that  1815  should  be  remembered  in 
1830.  My  conviction,  moreover,  upon  all  these  points,  was  perfectly  in 
concurrence  with  that  of  the  man  who  then  presided  over  the  King's  coun- 
cil ;  and  I  received  fiom  him  the  firmest  support  on  the  occasion.  1  ought 
not  to  speak  of  a  transaction  in  which  he  took  an  active  pai-t,  without  ren- 
dering this  testimony  to  his  memory. 

But,  gentlemen,  we  were  not  actuated  solely  by  justice  and  loyalty  ;  we 
liad  on  our  side  grievances  of  long  standing  to  be  redressed,  and  rights  to 
vindicate  ;  the  discharge  of  the  American  debt  was  only  the  condition  of 
an  analogous  discharge,  by  the  United  States,  of  claims  prefiented  by  us  ; 
it  was  only  the  first  clause  of  a  treaty,  in  which  we  were  to  have  inserted 
important  stipulations,  and  which,  as  a  whole,  and  in  its  result,  was  to 
serve  at  once  the  interests  of  commerce  and  the  policy  of  France. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten,  gentlemen,  that  at  the  period  when  this  treaty 
%vas  signed,  which,  in  putting  an  end  to  all  the  differences  between  the 
United  States  and  us,  placed  our  relations  thenceforward  upon  the  footing 
of  the  most  perfect  good  understanding,  a  year  had  not  elapsed  since  a 
revolution  which  m.ade  it  perhaps  necessary,  or  at  least  prudent,  for  us  to 
secure  powerful  allies  and  faithful  friends.     [Signs  of  approbation.] 

With  regard  to  this  second  part  of  the  treaty  of  the  4th  July,  1831,  that 
'is  to  say,  to  those  clauses  which  regulate  French  interests,  I  refer  you,  for 
their  details,  to  the  report  of  your  committee,  and  will  only  speak  of  their 
tenor. 

As  to  private  interests,  they  secure  an  indemnification  of  1,500,000 
francs  to  French  subjects,  whose  demands  the  United  States  had  held  in 
suspense,  as  a  reprisal  ;  and  I  ought  to  mention  that  this  sum  is  far  from 
being  absorbed  by  the  claims  recognised  as  valid. 

With  respect  to  general  interests,  in  return  for  the  abandonment  made 
foyus  of  our  claims,  from  the  construction  of  certain  articles  of  the  treaty  of 
cession  of  Louisiana,  in  which  the  United  States  persist,  they  stipulate 
for  a  considerable  reduction  of  the  duties  levied,  in  the  ports  of  the  Union, 
«pon  our  wines  and  silks,  and  henceforth  make  the  United  States  the  most 
advantageous  market  for  the  two  most  important  products  of  our  soil  and 
industry  ;  that  is  to  say,  gentlemen,  according  to  the  just  observation 
of  the  author  of  your  report,  they  place  hereafter  the  commercial  relations 
of  the  two  nations  under  the  best  guaranty  of  their  prospeiity  and  their 
duration,  to  wit,  the  very  nature  of  their  interests  and  their  reciprocal 
wants. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  431 

I  shall  conclude  with  recapitulating,  gentlemen,  that  when  the  adminis- 
tration, of  which  I  had  forsome  time  the  honorto  direct  the  foreign  relations, 
took  charge  of  the  aftairs  of  the  country,  it  found  them  burdened  with  a 
pecuniary  claim,  the  amount  of  which  had  not  been  ascertained  ;  and  upon 
this  point  a  difference  iiad  arisen  upon  such  grounds,  and  in  such  a  way 
that  it  seemed  impossible  to  come  to  a  determination.  Witiitliis  difficulty 
were  connected  several  questions,  more  or  less  important,  to  some  of  which 
recent  events  had  imparted  a  weight  and  a  bearing  altogetiicr  novel.  That 
administration  was  of  opinion,  that  immediately  after  a  revolution,  which 
tended  to  strengtlien  the  bonds  connecting  us  wilii  free  nations,  it  was 
necessary  to  alter  our  course,  to  recognise  our  rights  and  those  of 
others,  and,  having  done  so,  to  consecrate  them  by  a  loyal  arrange- 
ment. That  act  now  awaits  your  decision.  You  will  decide  whether 
he  who  has  signed  it,  charged  at  once  with  the  precious  deposite  of  the 
interests  of  the  Treasury,  as  well  as  with  the  honor  and  policy  of  France, 
has  sacrificed  the  one  to  the  other,  or  whether  he  has  reconciled,  as  far  as 
was  in  his  power,  the  dignity  of  the  country  with  economy  of  the  pub- 
*5ic  funds. 

M.  BiGNON. 

Gentlemen:  Whatever  may  be  the  determination  of  the  Chamber,  the 
question  now  before  it  should  be  well  examined  ;  tlie  Chaniber  should  know 
whether,  in  sanctioning  tlie  financial  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  July  4tli, 
1831,  it  is  really  paying  a  just  debt,  or,  by  acquiescing  in  a  condition,  the 
justice  of  which  is  not  demonstrated,  it  is  making  a  sacrifice  to  its  internal 
•  or  to  its  external  policy,  or  to  both  together;  or,  finally,  whether,  by  ac- 
ceding to  a  charge,  to  say  the  least,  much  too  heavy,  it  is  not  paying  a 
forced  tribute  to  the  convenience  of  tlie  ministry,  which  has  deferred  the 
communication  of  a  clause  easily  modified  at  first,  but  now  rendered  much 
more  difficult  to  be  changed. 

It  is  only  now,  that  is  to  say,  two  years  after  the  signing  of  this  treaty, 
that  the  bill  for  carrying  it  into  execution  is  first  presented  to  you.  This 
presentation,  besides  being  very  late,  was  also  incomplete,  because  the 
speech  accompanying  it,  in  this  session,  as  in  the  last,  had  left  the  Chamber 
in  the  most  absolute  ignorance  as  to  what  was  most  important  for  it  to  know. 

In  truth,  an  immense  mass  of  documents  have  been  laid  before  the  com- 
mittee, out  of  which  it  had  to  make  its  choice.  Among  these  documents 
is  one  which  seems  to  me  specially  worthy  of  serious  attention  ;  it  is  a 
memoir,  drawn  up  in  1831,  by  the  connnission  appointed  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  that  time.  Tiiis  commission  was  divided  unetpially  in  opinion. 
The  majority,  consisting  of  four  members,  considered  tliat  twelve  millions 
of  francs  would  be  a  reasonable  and  just  satisfaction  for  all  the  American 
claims.  The  minority  of  two  members  thought  the  indemnification  due  on 
those  claims  was  at  least  thirty  millions.  There  was  an  immense  differ- 
ence between  these  two  estimates.  The  ministry,  by  adopting  twenty-live 
millions,  gave  the  preference  to  the  advice  of  the  minority.  Un  what  mo- 
tive? Certainly  it  should  have  told  us,  but  it  has  not.  vSome  previous 
examination  is  necessary  in  all  arrangements  for  a  round  sum,  but  here  we 
can  find  no  trace  of  any. 

You  may  suppose  what  was  the  embarrassment  of  your  committee,  on 
finding  that  the  materials  in  support  of  the  amount  agreed  upon  were  so 
inconclusive.  It  had  to  do  of  itself  that  which  should  have  been  done 
beforehand,  and  of  which  it  should  have  been  only  required  to  ascertain 


432  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

the  correctness.  Various  statements  have  been  drawn  up  by  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  AfTaii's.  Many  plans  for  fornjing  estimates  have  been  pro- 
posed, hy  which  mean  valuations  have  been  found  ;  and  from  these,  as  tiie 
reporter  of  the  cotunHttee  has  dechired,  tiie  sum  of  twenty-live  millions  has 
been  exactly  calculated.  For  my  own  jiait,  gentlemen,  I  must  avow  that 
I  am  by  no  means  convinced,  and  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  state  my  doubts 
to  the  Chamber. 

If  the  matter  in  dispute  between  France  and  tlie  United  States  had  been 
of  a  nature  to  depend  entirely  on  an  appreciation  of  losses  alleged  to  have 
been  sustained  by  the  Americans,  on  the  validity  or  non-validity  of  the 
seizures,  on  their  date,  and  upon  those  of  the  trials  or  imperial  decisions 
which  pronounced  tiicir  confiscation,  or  npon  arithmetical  calculations, 
independently  of  all  other  jioiiticai  considerations,  the  Government  should, 
in  my  opinion,  have  been  guided  by  the  rejiort  of  the  majority  of  the  com- 
mission of  1831. 

The  minister  of  the  United  States  had  presented  a  statement  of  losses, 
divided  nnder  nine  heads  or  classes,  in  wliich  the  amount  due  by  France 
was  placed  at  seventy  millions.  We  shall  hereafter  see  that  this  estimate 
had  been,  in  1812,  abandoned  hy  the  Federal  Government.  Bringing  it  up 
again  thus,  twenty  years  after,  was  nothing  more  than  one  of  those  com- 
mon ex[)edients,  of  exaggerating  a  demand  beyond  ail  measure  at  first,  in 
order  to  obtain  more  in  the  end.  The  honorable  commission  of  1831  soon 
set  aside  these  unfounded  pretensions.  It  was  discovered  that,  among  the 
documents  furnished  by  the  American  plenipotentiary,  were  duplicates, 
incorrect  papers,  and  claims  either  entirely  destitute  of  foundation,  or 
raised  above  all  admissible  value.  Here  the  minority  agreed  with  the 
majority.  The  nine  heads  were  reduced  to  four,  and  it  was  declared  that 
they  could  not  go  beyond  them.  It  was  for  the  claims  comprehended  under 
these  four  iieads,  tliat  the  commission  of  1831  declai-ed  twelve  millions  to 
be  a  fair  compensation. 

Admitting  even  that  the  question  was  to  be  determined  only  in  reference 
to  these  data,  I  shosiid  consiciei*  this  sum  of  twelve  millions  as  the  utmost 
concession  which  our  Government  ought  to  make;  but  the  question  is  not  to 
be  kept  within  such  narrow  limits,  and  wc  must,  at  least  in  my  opinion, 
enter  into  another  order  of  ideas  and  events  before  coming  to  a  conclusion. 
There  are  some  most  important  circumstances  which  appear  to  have 
escaped  the  commission  of  1831,  and  which,  had  they  been  considered  by 
it,  would  certainly  have  decided  it  to  reduce  the  sum  admitted  still  further. 
And  it  seems  to  me  tijat  the  ministry,  whose  inadvertence  is  not  to  be 
excused,  has  by  no  means  used  ali  its  advantages,  and  brought  forward  all 
the  arguments  whic/i  it  might  have  urged. 

The  report  of  the  piesent  committee  proposes  three  questions.  The  first; 
is,  whether  any  indemnification  be  due  to  the  Americans  ? 

For  myself,  I  answer  plainly,  yes;  and  shall  not,  in  order  to  support 
the  contrary,  have  I'ecourse  to  the  stt-angc  arguments  of  the  Restoration. 
Others  might  be  adduced  against  the  admission,  more  specious  at  least,  if 
not  more  decisive,  than  those  alleged  by  the  Restoration.  Among  the  four 
classes,  1  agree  that  there  is  at  least  one  which  cannot  be  contested.  I 
mean  that  of  American  vessels  burnt  or  sunk  at  sea,  for  the  purpose  of 
concealing  the  movements  of  French  squadrons.  For  this  species  of  losses 
indemnification  is  clearly,  and  by  every  reason,  due. 

The  second  question  presented  by  the  committee  is — whether,  admitting 


L  ^^oc-  ^^'  2.  ]  433 

the  principle  of  tlie  indemnification,  the  sum  of  twenty-five  millions  is 
greater  than  that  justly  due  ?  On  this  point,  as  I  have  already  declared, 
my  opinion  is  contrary  to  that  of  tlie  committee. 

Among  the  other  three  heads  or  classes  of  seizures  and  confiscations, 
there  is  not  one  which  docs  not  admit  of  doubts,  oi*  does  not  afford  matter 
for  discussion  as  regards  the  facts.  Moreover,  as  it  is  easy  to  show  that 
the  Americans,  in  the  course  of  the  war  and  favoicd  by  the  war,  have 
obtained,  under  various  forms,  more  than  compensation  for  their  losses,  it 
follows  that  the  amount  miglit  have  been  reduced  to  a  very  moderate  sura, 
in  a  convention  founded  on  good  will  and  good  faith. 

In  order  to  demonstrate  this,  I  shall  be  under  the  necessity  of  giving 
you  a  sketch  of  the  events  from  whiclj  tiiese  claims  originate,  according  to 
my  views  of  them;. and  I  must  ask  your  indidgence  in  doing  so,  after  the 
history  which  the  reporter  of  the  committee  has  with  so  much  talent  laid 
before  you.  There  will  not  only  be  some  difference  in  the  light  under 
which  I  shall  place  tlie  facts  already  brought  forward,  but  1  shall  also  have 
.gome  to  })roduce,  which  have  been  as  yet  either  omitted  or  neglected,  and 
whicli  may  give  an  entirely  diffei-ent  complexion  to  the  question. 

The  war  of  the  French  revolution,  begun  as  a  war  of  principles,  was, 
for  our  adversaries,  only  a  war  of  pov;er.  After  having  fought  for  the 
purpose  of  subduing  France,  and  sharing  it  among  themselves,  liie  conti- 
nental States,  often  conquered  and  despoiled,  had  been  reduced  to  fight  for 
the  ])reservation  of  the  remainder  of  their  possessions  and  of  their  inde- 
pendence. England,  alone  and  untouched,  had  never  abandoned  one  of 
her  pretensions  ;  but  in  1814  and  1815,  when,  by  a  strange  turn  of  fortune, 
the  Goverimients  in  coalition  remained,  ciiiefly  through  the  aid  of  that 
Pdwci-,  in  possession  of  the  field,  it  was  not  England  that  reaped  the  prin- 
cipal fruits  of  victory.  The  continental  Powers  made  immense  acquisitions 
in  territory  and  in  population;  England  only  preserved  what  could  not  be 
taken  from  her,  ajid  in  certain  respects  has  lost  a  great  deal.  Although 
Napoleon  has  fallen,  yet  men  of  Ijis  chai'acter,  in  passing  through  the 
world,  givy  it  an  impulse  which  continues  long  after  their  disappearance; 
the  man  indeed  ceai:es  to  exist,  but  the  eflects  of  his  passage  remain,  and 
are  often  not  known  until  after  lie  himself  is  gone.  At  the  moment  in  which 
England,  by  the  overtlirow  of  France,  seemed  to  have  reached  the  highest 
point  of  greatness,  the  order  of  the  political  world  ceased  to  be  the  same. 
The  empire  of  the  seas  does  indeed  aj)i)ear  to  have  become  irrevocably 
hers;  but  this  empire,  now  apparent  and  nominal,  is  no  longer  suscep- 
tible of  the  same  applications.  The  nature  of  the  last  war,  the  con- 
troversies to  which  it  gave  rise,  the  unheard-T)f  measures  adopted  during 
its  continuance,  have  given  a  new  face  to  maritime  questions;  and  the 
dominion  of  the  seas,  so  long  held  by  England,  has  escaped  IVom  her, 
especially  in  this,  that  England  herself  would  have  no  interest  in  re- 
suming it,  ujider  its  foraicr  character  and  conditions.  What  Govern- 
ment has  profited,  and  will  profit,  the  most  by  this  great  change  r  The 
Government  of  the  United  States,  certainly.  What  nation  has  contributed 
the  most  to  produce  it  ?  P'rance.  This  imj)ortant  result  of  the  war  of 
our  revolution  ought  not,  I  think,  to  be  disregarded  in  estimating  the 
American  claims. 

We  can,  with  honest  pride,  say  that  France  has  always,  in  prosperity  as 
well  as  in  a'lversify,  professed  the  most  generous  and  liberal  doctrines 
with  regard  to  the  neutrality  of  the  seas.     We  do  not,  by  this,  cast  any 


434  I  Doc.  J^o.  2.  J 

reflection  on  those  nations  which  have  supported  other  ideas.  Every  nation, 
on  finding  itself  not  tlie  strongest  at  sea,  must  be  anxious  for  the  existence 
of  a  system  of  maritime  law,  fixed,  permanent,  and  common  to  all,  as  its 
own  safeguard  and  protection.  On  t!ie  otiicr  hand,  the  nation  which  con- 
siders itself  stronger  at  sea  tiian  all  the  others,  either  separate  or  united, 
will  naturally  admit  nothing  but  conventional  law,  subject  to  variation, 
and  depending  uj)on  special  treaties,  by  which  means  it  can  impose  upon 
each  nation  separately,  such  conditions  as  it  may  judge  most  favorable  to 
its  own  interests.  This  is  all  perfectly  natural ;  and  we  sec,  in  the  late 
wars,  on  one  side,  England  alone,  on  the  other,  all  the  remaining  commer- 
cial nations,  among  which  France  occupies  an  important  position.  Fortu- 
nately, in  this  instance,  France  supports  the  cause  of  justice  and  humanity. 

This  inheritance  from  the  old  monarchy  was  too  precious  to  be  neglected 
by  the  First  Consul,  who,  as  soon  as  he  came  into  power,  concluded  the 
treaty  of  1800  with  the  United  States,  based  upon  the  principle  of  free 
navigation,  the  principal  stipulations  of  which  have  been  accurately  laid 
before  you  by  the  reporter  of  the  committee  and  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs.  It  v.'as  in  the  same  spirit  that  the  First  Consul  favored  the  quacT- 
ruple  alliance  of  the  North,  formed  by  the  Emperor  Paul  of  Russia,  for 
carrying  into  execution  the  principles  of  1780. 

This  alliance  was  soon  dissolved  by  the  death  of  Paul,  but  the  attach- 
ment to  the  principles  of  1780,  which  had  been  revived  at  Berlin,  Stock- 
holm, and  especially  at  Copenhagen,  subsisted  even  after  the  defection  of 
Russia.  It  was  likewise  in  the  same  spirit,  and  with  the  same  views,  that 
the  First  Consul,  in  1803,  ceded  to  the  United  States  the  important  pos- 
session of  Louisiana.  These  two  treaties  were  expressly  intended  to  bind 
each  of  the  parties  not  to  bear  any  attack  upon  these  essential  rights, 
without  which  there  can  be  no  maritime  neutrality.  Which  of  the  two 
countries  was  the  first  to  break  its  engagements  ?  Facts  answer  the  ques- 
tion. The  reporter  of  the  committee  has  given  you  a  detailed  account  oE 
the  British  orders  in  council,  which,  from  1803  to  1805,  were  openly  vio- 
lating all  the  rights  of  neutrals  ;  seizures,  the  right  of  searcli  supported  by 
violence,  ports  interdicted  wliich  were  not  actually  blockaded,  all  these 
were  suffered  and  submitted  to  by  the  Americans,  because  their  commerce, 
notwithstanding  the  numerous  spoliations  undergone,  still  gave  enormous, 
though  disgraceful  profits.  At  this  time,  the  increase  of  their  exports, 
together  with  the  carrying  trade  to  Europe  in  their  vessels,  was  valued  at 
one  hundred  millions  of  dollars  a,  year.  In  revenge  for  these  orders  in 
council,  particularly  that  of  May  l6th,  1806,  by  which  all  the  ports  be- 
tween Brest  and  the  mouth  of  the  Elbe  were  declared  in  a  state  of  block- 
ade, was  issued  the  celebrated  decree  of  Berlin,  of  November  21st,  1806, 
declaring  the  British  islands  in  a  state  of  blockade. 

Then  commenced  the  seizures  and  confiscations  which  gave  rise  to  the 
American  claims.  Gentlemen,  the  conflict  thus  carried  on  for  twelve 
years  between  two  gigantic  Powers,  offered  an  imposing,  a  terrific  specta- 
cle;  all  maritime  nations  were  affected  by  it.  From  1805  and  1806,  Eng- 
land began  to  make  known  her  intention,  claiming  it  too  as  her  right  to 
establish  a  blockade  not  enforced  by  squadrons,  or  even  single  ships,  as 
the  law  of  nations  had  hitherto  always  required,  but  by  a  simple  decla- 
I'ation  of  her  will  to  that  effect.  Against  this  system  of  factitious,  o( paper 
blockade.  Napoleon  arose  with  more  energy,  and,  it  must  be  allowed,  with 
more  justice.     The  Berlin  decree  gave  a  heavy    blow  to  England  ;  the 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  435 

consequences  of  the  Fi-ench  reprisals  were  so  mucii  the  heavier,  as  victory 
was  every  day  enlarging  the  territory  over  which  the  power  of  France 
extended. 

To  the  Berlin  decree  England  opposed  its  orders  in  council  of  Novem- 
ber 11,  1807,  of  wiiich  the  substance  and  objects  have  been  detailed  in  the 
report;  you  have  also  been  shown  there  how  Napoleon,  who  was  not  the 
man  to  recede  in  the  bold  and  violent  system  begun  by  England,  replied 
by  a  decree  of  Novembei'  23,  1807,  and  afterwards  by  that  of  December 
13tb,  of  the  same  year  ;  the  latter,  as  you  know,  declaring  that  every 
sieutral  vessel  which  should  have  submitted  to  the  requisitions  of  England, 
%vas  to  be  considered  as  having  lost  its  nationality,  f  denationalise. ) 

There  was  a  time  when,  even  in  b'rance,  men  devoid  of  patriotism,  and 
as  careless  of  the  honor  of  their  country  as  of  trutii,  thought  it  clever  to 
say  that  Napoleon,  in  order  to  justify  his  acts  of  violence  against  England, 
had  been  obliged  to  commit  violence  against  our  language,  and  to  create 
new^  terms  for  new  acts  of  injustice.  No  one  ventures  now  to  speak  in 
this  manner;  prejudices  have  vanished,  and  the  day  of  impartiality  is 
come;  the  principle  on  which  Napoleon  rested,  is,  that  all  nations  are  under 
obligation  to  maintain  the  independence  of  their  flag.  His  principle  is 
just ;  its  support  is  required  by  the  interests  of  the  whole  iiuman  race.  A 
Goverimient  n)ay,  if  it  pleases,  bear  with  injuries  as  long  as  they  only  af- 
fect itself:  but  when  they  rebound  upon  other  nations,  they  have  a  iv'ghtto 
do  all  in  their  power  to  preserve  themselves.  "When  a  neutral  Govern- 
ment is  placed  between  two  belligerent  parties,  unless  it  makes  its  flag 
respected  by  one,  it  has  Jio  right  to  require  that  i-espect  from  the  other. 
Napoleon  said  to  the  Americans,  you  admit  all  the  pretensions  of  England; 
you  suffer  her  cruisers  to  search  your  vessels,  and  to  carry  them  into  her 
portf^,  or  you  enter  them  yourselves  in  obedience  to  her  orders,  and  there 
pay  a  dnty  on  your  cargoes.  Thus  you  make  yourselves  the  vassals,  the 
subjects  of  England,  and  thenceforward  you  are  in  my  eyes  no  longer 
Americans;  your  vessels  are  English  vessels,  your  cargoes  are  English 
cargoes  ;  in  a  word,  your  vessels  have  lost  their  national  character,  {sont 
denationalises.)     The  expression  was  as  just  as  the  penalty  enforced. 

Allow  me,  gentlemen,  to  make  another  short  digression.  Some  of  you, 
perhaps,  on  hearing  me  thus  defending  the  right  of  Napoleon's  proceedings 
en  the  question  of  maritime  neutrality,  may  consider  it  imprudent  to  recall 
occurrences,  of  a  natui'e  to  affect  the  susceptibilities  of  the  English  nation, 
with  which  we  ai'e  most  anxious  to  maintain  and  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of 
good  understanding.  So  far  from  ejitertaining  any  sucli  fears,  I  think  we 
should  be  glad  of  the  o])portunity  now  offer-cd  to  have  these  old  points  of 
difference  examined,  with  a  view  to  prevent  their  recurrence.  We  must, 
besides,  recollect,  that  from  1793  to  1814,  it  was  mucii  less  the  English 
nation  than  the  English  aiistocracy  which  favored  a  war  of  exter- 
mination against  France  ;  as  if  both  nations  could  not,  at  the  same  time, 
have  prospered  and  been  free  :  as  if  the  prosperity  of  France  was  necessa- 
rily to  bring  on  the  ruin  of  the  British  nation.  Ever  since  that  period, 
there  have  existed  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament  generous  men,  who,  ris- 
ing above  the  selfish  views  of  that  aristocracy  to  which  they  belonged  by 
their  birth,  openly  blamed  the  extravagant  and  iniquitous  pretensions  of 
their  Cabinet.  The  present  British  administration  comprises  many  of 
these  noble  spirits,  who  have  gone  in  advance  of  the  age  :  who,  while  duly 
appreciating  the  interests  of  their  own  country,  and  coming  forward  ho- 


436  I   Doc.  No.   2.  ] 

iiorably  in  support  of  reform,  have  liad  the  happiness  to  witness  its  peace- 
able completion,  and  by  that  circumstance  alone,  have  levelled  the  barriers 
which  have  so  long  intervened  between  the  two  nations. 

The  policy  of  Napoleon  is  no  more  to  be  observed  at  the  present  day 
by  France  towards  England,  than  t!ie  ptdicy  of  Pitt  and  Castlereagh  is  to 
be  the  guide  for  England  with  respect  to  Fi-ance.  The  two  countries  will, 
I  hope,  in  future,  have  no  important  differences;  the  cabinets  on  botli  sides 
of  the  channel  will  not  undoubtedly  forget  that,  in  the  agitations  of  the 
human  race,  they  arc  engaged  in  the  same  cause,  and  that  they  w  ill  long 
have  opposed  to  them  the  same  antijjathics,  and  the  same  resistance  ;  but 
even  admitting  that  disputes  may  arise  between  the  cabinets,  which  the 
nations  will  probably  not  enter  into,  admitting  even  the  possibility  of  a 
war,  the  same  jnaritime  question  which  once  excited  the  minds  of  all,  will 
probably  not  fui'nish  motives  in  future  for  the  slightest  conflict.  England, 
perhaps,  instead  of  reviving  pretensions,  the  effect  of  which  can  be  no 
longer  the  same,  will  find  more  advantage  in  a  fieedom  of  navigation,  of 
which  she  w  ill  be  the  first  to  jirofit,  and  the  most  skilful  in  doing  so,  than 
in  acts  of  rigor  as  fatal  to  herself  as  to  other  Powers.  The  forms  of  war 
will  necessarily  change.  Are  not  the  forms  of  peace  already  altered  ? 
What  is  the  aspect  of  the  European  Contitient  at  this  moment  ?  Napoleon, 
in  order  to  defeat  the  manufacturing  power  of  Great  Britain,  by  enabling 
other  countries  to  do  without  its  productions,  raised  up  other  manufacto- 
ries against  it.  He  created  sources  of  wealth  on  the  Continent,  w  hich  had 
never  yet  existed.  What  have  those  Powers  done  who  succeeded  through 
the  aid  of  England  to  the  supremacy  of  Napoleon  ?  They  have  adopted 
his  system,  and  are  every  day  extending  its  applications.  The  only  differ- 
ence is,  that  what  he  did  by  war,  they  arc  continuing  by  their  custom- 
house laws.  Services  are  forgotten,  and  gi'atitude  has  disappeared.  Of 
all  the  continental  States,  France,  tiie  old  enemy  of  England,  in  conse- 
quence of  greater  progress  in  the  true  principles  of  political  economy,  and, 
above  all,  iVom  an  increasing  sympathy  between  the  two  nations,  is  to  be 
the  first  to  come  to  a  better  understanding  w  itii  England,  for  an  increase 
of  relations  and  exchanges.  Thus,  gentlemien,  let  us  have  no  fear  of 
openly  examining  the  events  of  a  past,  to  which  the  present  has  so  little 
resemblance.  The  English  nation  of  1834  is  as  far  as  we  from  the  pas- 
sions of  1 807  ;  and  we  may  now  speak  of  our  late  w  ars  as  posterity  w  ill 
speak  of  them  a  century  hence. 

However  ligorous  were  the  decrees  of  Napoleon,  they  were  eluded  by 
the  connivance  of  tlie  Americans  and  the  Englisli.  Thus,  for  instance, 
American  vessels  carried  the  productions  of  tiieir  soil  to  Madeira,  where 
they  received  in  exchange  Englisli  articles,  which  they  took  to  the  ports 
of  Europe.  Otliei'  vessels  contrived  to  get  taken  by  English  vessels  and 
carried  into  English  ports,  where  they  ])aid  the  duties  required  ;  they  then 
came  to  the  poits  of  France,  or  those  of  lier  allies,  w  ith  certificates  showing 
that  they  had  been  by  force  compelled  to  touch  in  England.  All  the  pre- 
cautions of  the  French  were  nearly  useless,  and  for  one  vessel  seized  and 
confiscated  on  account  of  fraud,  there  were  twenty  which  escaped  un- 
punished. 

Nevertheless  the  hostilities  committed  by  the  Evglish  ships  of  war 
against  the  American  nation,  the  impressment  of  their  seamen  under  pre- 
tence of  their  being  English  deserters,  the  attacks  upon  several  publrc 
vessels,  particularly  upon  the  frigate  Chesapeake  on  the  very  waters  of 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  437 

the  United  States,  liad  excited  in  the  n>iiui.s  of  aii  an  indignation  which 
apj)cated  at  one  moment  ready  to  break  forth.  Tiiese  were  certainly  most 
legitimate  causes  of  war.  President  JeiiVr.son  demanded  of  the-English  Go- 
vernment signal  satisfaction  ;  but  the  American  peojjledid  not  long  sustain 
their  Chief  Magistrate.  Resentment  was  soon  calmed;  the  spirit  of 
speculation  rarely  sacrifices  an  actual  gain  to  the  future  prosperity,  much 
less  to  the  dignity  of  a  country.  The  voice  of  private  interest  prevails 
over  that  of  national  hon.-)r. 

The  head  of  the  Government,  finding  it  impossible  to  take  the  energetic 
stand  which  lie  desired,  endeavoied  at  least  to  preserve 'his  nation  from 
the  attacks  every  where  directed  against  its  independence;  he  cut  off  its 
communication  with  Europe.  On  the  2-2.(1  of  December,  1807,  five  days 
after  Napoleon  had  sigised  the  Milan  decree,  Jefferson  laid  an  embargo  on 
Ameiican  vessels  in  all  the  poi'ls  of  the  Union.  This  measure  could  only 
in  part  be  carried  into  effect.  In  vain  did  tiie  Federal  Government  recall 
all  American  vessels  from  Europe  ;  in  vain  did  it  issue  threats  of  rigorous 
punishment  against  those  which  should  not  return.  Its  voice  was  not 
listened  to.  An  immense  American  colony  remained  in  the  seas  of  Eu- 
rope ;  a  ijoating  and  adventurous  colony,  co\ejing  every  coast,  and  en- 
deavoring to  penetrate  into  every  port  at  the  risk  of  an  occasional  confis- 
cation, which  was  amply  compensated  by  the  greatness  of  the  profits.  It 
has  been  truly  said,  the  American  flag  was  every  where,  ilmerican 
commerce  no  where.  American  ships,  carrying  on  the  trade  of  all 
countries,  were  pailicularly  engaged  in  transj)orting  English  j)roductions 
wherever  they  could  be  sold.  Fi'om  the  date  of  the  embargo,  at  the  end  of 
180r,  all  tlie  exceptions  made  by  the  French  Government  in  favor  of  the 
Americans  arose  from  kindness  and  j)ure  liberaiity  ;  it  might,  without 
any  great  injustice,  have  refused  to  admit  of  any,  such  was  the  difficulty 
in  many  cases  in  distinguishing  the  true  from  the  false,  and  so  evident 
and  manifest  was  the  fraud  in  others.  In  pioof  of  the  latter,  I  will  cite 
some  facts  wisich  cannot  be  denied,  and  wliich  will  certainly  have  weight 
with  you. 

About  the  end  of  1808,  of  twelve  or  fifteen  vessels  under  the  American 
flag  seized  at  Rochefort  and  Uochelle,  an  American  consul  himself  ac- 
knowledged that  the  j)apers  of  one-half  the  number  had  been  fabricated  at 
LondoJ!,  and  he  considered  it  very  probable  that  the  others  were  only 
Englisli  vessels  with  old  American  papers. 

American  vessels,  at  that  time,  were  in  the  habit  of  coming  to  Spanish 
ports,  as  tliey  pretended  fi-om  foieign  countries,  yet  bringing  a  great 
number  of  English  passengers. 

Also,  at  tiie  same  j)erin.'J,  a  number  of  these  American  or  pretended 
American  vessels  used  to  sail  under  British  escort  for  Gibraltar,  whence 
thej  were  dispersed  over  the  whole  Meditei-ranean. 

As  the  ports  of  Italy,  and  even  Austria,  were  closed  against  the  British 
flag,  that  of  the  United  States  took  its  place.  Vessels  sailed  from  Trieste 
in  tiie  end  of  January,  1808,  and  returned  thither  with  fresh  cargoes  in 
the  following  May.  Their  voyage  was  not  long  ;  they  went  from  Malta 
to  Trieste,  and  from  Trieste  to  Malta.  So,  during  the  subsistence  of  the 
embargo,  when  the  American  flag  should  not  have  been  found  in  Europe, 
no  other  was  to  be  seen  there.  In  the  Baltic,  as  in  the  Mediterranean,  it 
was  under  the  American  flag  that  English  goods  were  carried  to  the  great 
commercial  entrejiots,  whence  they  were  distributed  at  every  point  which 


438  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

offered  them  a  suitable  entry.  If  Austria  i)a(l  not,  in  1809,  declared  war 
against  France,  and  if  she  had  proceeded  to  the  full  length  against  the 
Amei'ican  vessels  which  she  had  seized,  the  Federal  Government  would 
perhaps  have  had  to  demand  from  her  twenty  millions  as  indemnification, 
supposing  it  to  act  towards  that  Power  as  it  has  acted  towards  France; 
although,  in  those  seizures  made  in  Austria,  there  was  never  more  than  the 
vessel  itself  American,  and  often  nothing  but  the  flag. 

In  place  of  the  embargo,  which,  at  the  expense  of  the  American  nation, 
enriched  only  the  adventurous  class  of  speculators  who  were  occu- 
pied in  Europe  iii  the  service  of  England,  the  Federal  Government  sub- 
stituted, as  you  have  been  told,  a  non-intercourse  act,  forbidding  all  com- 
munication with  Great  Britian  and  France,  but  re- establishing  it  with 
other  countries.  The  latter  part  of  the  act  was  illusory.  At  the 
moment  when  it  was  issued,  the  wiiole  European  continent  was  sub- 
ject to  the  French  decrees;  there  was  but  a  single  momentary  excep- 
tion to  this  universal  application  of  them — that  which  produced  the  war 
between  Austria  and  France;  a  war  begun  on  the  9th  April,  and  termi- 
nated on  the  14th  October,  1809.  Every  vessel  under  the  American  flag, 
which  presented  itself  in  the  ports  of  a  nation  dependent  on  France,  or 
which  had  embraced  its  political  system,  voluntarily  ran  risk  of  confis- 
cation;  and  indeed  the  French  Government  might  then  have  declared  all 
vessels  calling  themselves  American,  which  by  any  way  fell  into  its 
hands,  to  be  lawful  prize. 

The  non-intercourse  act  might  have  been  considered  as  a  complete  rup- 
ture, if  the  French  Government  had  chosen  to  view  it  in  that  light;  but  it 
did  not  choose  to  do  so  :  and  during  tiie  whole  of  1809,  it  abstained  from 
every  measure  which  could  wound  thi3  Americans,  and  manifested  towards 
them  no  other  sentiments  than  those  of  constant  good  will. 

The  English  ministry,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  from  pride  or  dis- 
dain on  its  own  part,  or  want  of  address  on  that  of  its  agents,  over- 
whelmed the  Federal  Government  with  insults  and  ill  treatment.  A  Bri- 
tish agent,  Mr.  Erskine,  had  announced  to  the  I'l-csident  that  the  orders 
in  council  would  cease  to  have  effect  on  the  lOtii  of  June  :  this  excited  the 
utmost  joy  in  the  United  States;  and  the  new  President,  Mr.  Madison, 
took  credit  to  himself,  on  the  brilliant  success  witli  which  his  administra- 
tion had  commenced  :/eifs  were  in  preparation  to  celebrate  the  renewal 
of  commercial  relations  between  the  two  countries.  All  on  a  sudden,  by 
a  new  order  in  council,  of  the  24th  of  May,  it  appeared  that  the  British 
Government  refused  to  ratify  the  engagements  entered  into  by  Mr.  Er- 
skine. Tiie  English  Cabinet  pretended  that  its  minister  had  acted  not 
only  without  authorisation,  but  even  in  direct  opposition  to  his  instruc- 
tions. There  was  but  one  thing  to  be  done;  the  non-intercourse  act  was 
maintained,  with  regard  to  England,  in  all  its  rigor. 

However,  in  order  to  lessen  the  discontent  of  the  Federal  Government, 
a  new  English  plenipotentiary  was  sent  out.  The  patience  of  this  Govern- 
ment was  to  be  put  to  still  stronger  trials  ;  the  new  ])lenipotrntiary,  Mr. 
Jackson,  did  not  spare  it;  he  began  by  declaring  that  his  predecessor, 
Mr.  Erskine,  had  acted  tvithout  powers.  So  far,  there  was  no  offence^ 
but  he  added  that  the  President  knew  it  while  treating  with  him.  And 
he  carried  the  insult  still  further;  for,  on  the  23d  of  October,  he  repeated, 
in  writing,  that  which  he  had  announced  verbally.  No  relations  could 
be  kept  up  with  a  man  capable  of  such  conduct;  all  communication  with 
him  was  suspended,  and  he  returned  to  England.     This  took  place  in  1 809. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  439 

In  proportion  as  the  British  Government  threw  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  reconciliation  with  the  United  States,  Napoleon  appeared  to  be  actuated 
by  contrary  feelings.  Wliile  the  Federal  Government  was  publishing  its 
non-intercourse  act,  of  March  1st,  Napoleon  was  authorizing  American 
vessels  to  return  to  the  United  States,  by  his  act  of  February  25.  Several 
vessels  took  advantage  of  this  authorization,  and  it  was  not  revoked  until 
after  the  new  adoption  of  the  non-intercourse  act. 

Some  months  later,  in  the  midst  of  the  operations  of  tlie  Austrian  cam- 
paign, Napoleon,  as  soon  as  he  heard  of  the  engagements  entered  into  by 
Mr.  Erskine  witii  the  Federal  Government,  ordered,  by  a  letter  dated 
Vienna,  June  13th,  that  the  relations  of  France  with  the  United  States 
should  be  replaced  on  the  footing  on  which  they  stood  before  the  Milan 
decree.  But  as  the  orders  in  council  were  not  really  revoked,  the  order 
of  Napoleon  was  not  carried  into  effect. 

Shortly  after,  on  the  22d  of  August,  Napoleon,  having  conquered  at 
Wagram,  wrote  from  Altenburg,  that  if  the  orders  in  council  of  No- 
vember 11th,  1807,  were  revoked,  the  Milan  decree  would  cease  of  itself 
to  have  effect.  Six  months  more  liaving  passed,  without  the  Federal  Go- 
vernment adopting  any  measure  to  have  its  neutrality  respected  by  Eng- 
land, the  French  Government  began,  and  not  before  1810,  its  reprisals  in 
return  for  the  n  on -inter  course  act,  which  had  already  been  subsisting 
eleven  months. 

On  the  10th  of  February,  the  Emperor  ordered  that  American  vessels, 
seized  at  St.  Sebastian,  should  be  carried  to  Bayonne  and  sold.  On  the 
23d  of  March,  by  a  decree,  dated  from  llambouillet,  he  ordered,  as  repri- 
sals still,  tiiat  every  American  vessel  wliich,  after  the  20th  of  the  succeed- 
ing May,  should  enter  or  have  entered  into  a  port  of  France,  or  its  colo- 
nies, or  the  countries  occupied  by  his  arms,  should  be  seized,  and  the  product 
of  the  sale  transferred  to  the  sinking  fund. 

By  a  decree  of  Augast  5,  he  declared  the  sales  which  had  been  made  to 
be  definitive;  and  as  Mr.  Jay  has  observed  in  the  report,  the  same  decree 
co!itained  an  additional  repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.  It 
was  not  until  after  long  discussions  with  England  that  the  Federal  Go- 
varnment  did  at  length  respond  to  the  amicable  appeal  of  France.  A  pro- 
clamation by  the  President,  dated  November  2,  1810,  aholished  the  non- 
intercourse  act  as  it  res])ccted  France,  and  gave  a  term  to  England  for  the 
witlidrawal  of  her  orders  in  council;  wliich  withdrawal  not  having  been 
made,  the  non-intercourse  act  was  continued  with  regard  to  her.  This  con- 
tinuation the  Emperor  considered  as  a  resistance  to  the  British  orders  in 
council,  and  in  consequence,  by  a  decree  of  April  28th,  1811,  he  declared 
those  of  Berlin  and  Milan  to  be  definitively  revoked  with  respect  to  the 
United  States,  from  the  1st  of  November,  1810. 

The  imperial  decree  of  August  5tli,  rendering  definitive  the  sales  al- 
ready made,  was  only  a  measure  of  just  reciprocity  :  for  the  non-intercourse 
act  declared  that  the  confiscations  of  French  vessels  should  have  effect,  even 
though  commercial  relations  should  be  renewed  with  France.  That  which 
the  United  States  had  declared  their  intention  to  do  for  French  vessels,  Na- 
poleon applied  to  the  Americans.  Nothing  could  certainly  be  more  just. 
Your  committee,  however,  thought  otherwise;  thus  it  admits  as  due  to  the 
Americans  the  value  of  twelve  vessels  in  statement  E,  amounting  to  2, 269, 306 
francs.     These  vessels  were  seized  before  November  1st,  1810;  but  their 


440  r  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

condemnation  had  not  been  pronounced  nniil  after  tlie  28th  of  March,  1811, 
the  date  of  tlic  official  rcjical  of  the  decrees.  Tlie  seizures  were  law- 
ful ;  according  to  t!ie  principles  adopted  by  the  Federal  Government  towards 
us,  we  had  a  right  to  make  them  ;  the  date  of  the  condemnation  was  of  little 
consequence.  Your  committee,  in  admitting  the  value  of  these  twelve 
vessels  into  the  indemnification,  have  done  an  act  of  pure  munificence,  not 
one  of  justice.  Although  1  do  not  found  my  opinion  on  details  of  this 
nature,  yet  1  have  thought  proper  to  notice  this  fact,  in  order  that  tiie 
Chamber  may  see  Innv  indulgently  the  claims  of  the  Americans  have  been 
treated. 

For  many  years  France  a!id  the  Federal  Government  had  been  hinting 
to  each  oilier  the  propriety  of  negotiations  for  a  new  treaty  founded  on  the 
great  pi'inci{)le  of  maritime  neutrality,  by  w  hich  the  union  of  the  two  coun- 
tries might  be  rendered  stronger.  In  1811  and  1812,  the  negotiation 
began  in  reality.  A  prnjet  was  presented  by  the  American  minister, 
Mr.  Barlow;  its  articles  were  debated  between  Mr.  Barlow  and  a 
French  plenipotentiary  ;  and  we  have  here  to  notice  an  important  fact, 
which  is,  that  the  same  claims  which  were  raised  to  seventy  millions  in 
1831,  had  been,  at  the  cominencemcnt  of  Mr.  Barlow's  negotiation,  esti- 
mated at  the  same  sum,  but  were  in  tiie  course  of  it  reduced  first  to  forty 
millions,  then  to  thirty  millions. 

It  is  moreover  to  be  observ^l,  that  in  1812  easy  terms  were^  offered  to 
the  Imperial  Government.  A  proposition  was  niade  to  free  it  from  all  de- 
mands, provided  eighty  licenses  were  granted  to  the  American  commerce, 
1o  import  from  any  country  or  place,  either  in  America  or  in  Europe,  into 
French  ports,  certain  colonial  or  other  American  productions  :  in  exchange, 
the  Americans  were  to  export  from  France  or  Italy  articles  to  the  value  of 
those  introduced  by  virtue  of  the  licenses.  ^\'hen  tlie  American  minister 
offered  France  such  a  method  of  payment,  with  such  an  obligation  too  at- 
tached on  his  side,  is  it  not  clearly  proved  that  his  estimates,  even  the 
lowest,  were  rated  above  the  just  value  ?  We  may  also  add,  that  among 
the  vessels  seized,  for  wiiich  indemnification  was  demanded,  there  were 
some  which  wouiil  have  been  seizable  even  by  the  American  laws  them- 
selves ;  and  the  Federal  Government  indeed  admitted  that  we  had  received 
what  they  should  have  taken  themselves. 

This  is  not  all,  gentlemen  ;  other  expedients  had  been  thought  of  for 
freeing  the  French  Government,  without  subjecting  it  to  any  actual  jiay- 
ment.  One  of  tiiem  was  to  give,  by  a  new  convention,  a  greater  exten- 
sion to  the  limits  of  Louisiana,  which  had.  never  been  correctly  defined. 
Another  service  which  the  Federal  Government  was  at  one  period  ready 
to  accept  in  lieu  of  indemnification,  was  the  concurrence  of  France  in  ob- 
taining for  it  possession  of  the  Floridas  ;  but  as  circumstances  afterwards 
permitted  the  American  Government  to  take  provisional  possession  of  those 
jiroviiices  without  our  intervention,  it  determined  to  treat  in  future  only 
with  Sjiain.  That  Government,  as  we  see,  neglects  none  of  the  chances 
offered  by  fortune ;  this  remark  is  matle  to  Its  honor,  and  we  should  be 
glad  to  hear  it  made  respecting  ourselves. 

In  the  midst  of  these  discussions,  the  United  States  declared  war  against 
Great  Britain.  Napoleon,  then  in  Russia,  invited  Mr.  Barlow  to  come  to 
Wilna,  in  order  to  put  th«  seal  to  a  treaty,  which  would  have  been  a  real 
alliance  between  the  two  nations.  Every  one  is  but  t(io  well  acquainted 
with  the  events  which  then  changed  the  appearance  of  the   world.     The 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  441 

American  minister  fell  a  victim  himself  to  the  fatality  which  pursued  us  : 
he  set  off  sick  from  Paris,  and  died  at  a  sliort  distance  from  Warsaw. 
Tiie  negotiation  was  necessarily  interrupted.  When  it  was  resumed  in 
3  813,  the  Federal  Government,  in  order  to  give  its  claims  on  Napoleon  a 
better  ciiance  of  heing  settled,  hinted  that  the  continuance  of  the  war  in 
which  it  was  engaged  with  England  might  depend  upon  the  manner  in 
which  the  Americans  were  treated.  The  Emperor,  viewing  tiie  question  in 
this  light,  ordered  the  Duke  of  Yicenza  to  draw  up  the  report  of  January 
11th,  1814,  wliich  has  heen  cited  to  you,  for  his  own  information,  and  to 
serve  as  a  basis  for  discussion  ;  this  report  acknowledged  a  debt  of  thir- 
teen millions,  which  it  considered  might  be  raised  to  eighteen. 

In  order  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  character  of  tliis  report,  we  need 
only  look  at  its  date.  Was  Napoleon  about  to  i)ay  a  debt  ?  He  was  only 
giving  tlie  American  Government  encouragement  to  persevere  with  addi- 
tional vigor  in  the  struggle  in  whicij  oin*  common  interests  were  at  stake. 
We  may  only  wonder  that  he  did  not  oRer  more. 

Debts  from  one  nation  to  another  do  not  increase  in  value  by  age. 
Time  lessens,  and  at  length  extinguishes  them.  Whenever  a  Government 
to  which  another  is  in  debt-,  concludes  a  new  arrangement  with  the  latter, 
without  obtaining  the  payment  to  which  it  lays  claim,  the  reservations 
made  on  the  occasion  are  nothing  but  empty  pieces  of  formality.  Every 
fresh  reserve  is  only  another  sponge  passed  over  the  debt^  and  if,  in  the 
end,  any  satisfaction  be  obtained  by  mutual  consent,  it  is  never  more  than 
a  small  portion  of  the  original  sum.  Unfortuuately,  in  our  case,  exactly 
the  opposite  course  has. been  jiursued.  There  are,  in  trutli,  cii'cumstances 
in  wiiicli  all  claims  are  good,  as,  for  instajice,  when  there  has  been  a  war, 
and  the  battle  is  lost ;  but  such  is  not  our  position  with  regard  to  the  Ame- 
ricans. Tiiere  is  really  more  than  liberality  in  paying  twenty-five  millions 
in  1854,  when,  in  January,  1814,  a  year  in  which  France  had  so  strong  a>i 
interest  in  conciliating  the  United  States,  Napoleon  only  ailmitted  a  debt 
of  thirteen  millions,  which  might  perhaps,  at  furthest,  be  raised  to  eighteen. 
Let  us  look  back  again  to  1814. 

Napoleon  fell  :  Louis  XVIII  replaced  him,  and  France  was  laid  under 
contribution  by  the  other  Powers.  We  are  told  that  tiie  Amei-icans  had 
been  generous  in  not  joining  tiiose  Powers.  There  is  a  great  inadvertency 
in  this  assertion.  In  1814,  when  our  territory  was  first  occupied,  the 
Americans  could  not  join  our  enemies,  because  tliey  were  themselves  then 
at  war  with  Great  Britain  :  they  did  not,  indeed,  make  peace  until  the  24tli 
December  following.  At  tlie  beginning  of  that  year,  instead  of  being 
among  our  enemies,  they  were,  on  the  contrary,  in  fact,  our  allies,  since 
they  had  a  comm>on  enemy  with  us.  But  there  is  another  most  important 
circumstance  respecting  this  period  of  1814,  which  no  one  seems  willing  to 
notice.  The  Americans  at  first  asked  nothing  from  tiie  Royal  Govern- 
ment;  this  I  believe,  and  good  reason  they  had  for  abstaining.  .If  they 
had  asked  indemnification  at  that  time,  tlieir  demand  would  have  been  too 
easily  repelled.  The  late  negotiations  were  too  fresh  in  the  memory  of  all. 
For  eighty  licenses  they  had  offered  to  absolve  France  from  all  their  de- 
mands. When  Napoleon  had  fallen,  it  was  not  eighty  ships  only  that  were 
admitted  into  our  ports  ;  they  came  there  by  hundreds,  and  under  no  con- 
ditions, the  cou7itrij  whence  they  came  not  being  regarded.  Remark,  gen- 
tlemen, in  what  a  singular  state  things  were.  England,  in  coalition  with 
the  Continent,  conquered  France  j  and  immediately  the  Americans,  thoup-u 
29 


442  f  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

at  war  with  the  English,  tiike  aihantage  of  the  victory  gained  over  us  by 
thein.     Our  disasters  give  tliem  opportiuiities  of  making  immense  profits. 

When  the  Americatis,  thanks  to  the  triumph  of  the  coalition  over  their 
friend  France,  had  thus  paid  themselves,  and  more  than  paid  themselves, 
the  amount  of  their  claims  against  her,  they  then  addressed  the  Royal 
Go\ei nment,  declaring  it  their  debtor,  as  the  successor  of  the  Imj)erial 
Government.  Under  one  point  of  view,  we  agree  with  them.  The  Resto- 
ration succeeded  to  the  debts  of  Napoleon's  Government ;  agreed  :  but  it 
also  inherited  its  rights.  Now,  if  Napoleon,  though  vanquished,  had  not 
been  overthrown  in  1814,  he  would  either  not  have  allowed  American  ves- 
sels to  enter  our  ports,  or  he  would  have  said  to  the  Federal  Government 
— ynu  consented  to  receive  eighty  licenses  in  lieu  of  your  claims,  now  I 
admit  ail  your  vessels,  without  exception  ;  you  have  been  amply  indemni- 
iicd  ;  we  are  quits  ;  otherwise  England  would  have  been  trium};hi!ig  for 
you,  while  you  are  even  yet  at  war  with  her.  What  could  the  Federal 
Government  have  objected  to  this  ?  This  most  decisive  reply,  which  the 
Government  of  the  Restoration  might  have  made  to  the  pretensions  of  the 
Americans,  ^Yas  by  it  neglected.  In  truth,  it  at  first  did  not  need  it.  The 
American  claims  were  considered  of  no  importance  until  1818. 

Lei  us  admit  another  hypothesis.  Suppose  that,  in  1830,  the  Imperial 
Government  iiad  been  re-established,  could  it  not,  by  this  simple  reason- 
ing, have  been  authorized  in  rejecting  all  tlie  clainss  of  the  Americans  ? 
Vf'hat  the  Imperiai  Government  could  have  done,  the  Government  which 
sprung  from  the  revolution  of  July  had  a  right  to  do.  Many  other  con- 
siderations might  have  been  urged  in  opposition  to  the  claims  of  the  Ame- 
ricans, by  tiie  Imperial  Government,  which  subsist  yet  in  all  their  force 
and  solidity  for  us. 

From  the  long  exposition  which  I  have  made  of  the  events  in  question, 
the  positions  of  the  Federal  Government  and  of  France,  with  regai  d  to  each 
other,  seem  to  be  these  :  France  and  the  Federal  Government  united,  in 
1800,  for  the  guaranty  of  the  rigiits  of  neutrals.  What  did  this  treaty  of 
18C0  really  signify  ?  Was  it  not  a  species  of  alliance,  for  giving  efffect 
to  the  principles  which  it  set  foi'th  ?  In  order  still  further  to  engage  the 
United  States  in  this,  France,  in  1805,  ceded  Louisiana  to  them;  from 
1805  to  1814,  France  has  been  certainly  fighting  in  a  cause  which  is  more 
their  own  than  ours.  It  was  not  until  after  ten  years  of  outrages,  borne 
by  the  United  States  with  a  degree  of  patience  which  proved  most  inju- 
rious to  us,  that  the  United  States  came  at  length  to  a  declaration  of  war. 
Here  we  must  give  them  great  credit  for  valor  and  perseverance.  They 
withstood  tiic  invasion  of  a  foreign  foe  most  nobly  ;  the  struggle,  though 
not  long,  was  honorable  for  them  ;  and,  from  this  eighteen  months*  strug- 
gle, they  came  forth  with  their  strength  gloriously  proved,  v.ith  the  cer- 
tainty that  in  future  wars  these  principles  of  neutrality,  so  energetically 
defended  by  France,  atul  so  essential  to  themselves,  would  not  be  liable  to 
great  infractions :  in  a  word,  they  came  out  of  tlie  war  stronger,  more 
])owerful,  and  more  sure  of  their  independence  than  when  they  began  it ; 
they  came  out  of  it  with  a  great  augmentation  of  territory,  possessing 
Louisiana,  and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  the  Fioridas.  Which  of  the  two 
nations,  France  or  the  United  States,  had,  injustice,  the  strongest  claim  to 
indemnification  from  the  other  ?  And,  while  the  United  States,  after  the 
w  ar,  found  themselves  in  the  situation  above  mentioned,  what  was  the  con- 
dition of  France  ? 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  443 

And  it  is  in  1818,  ulicn  France,  reduced  to  its  liiniis  of  1789.  laboring 
under  severe  wounds,  needs  all  its  blood  for  its  recovery,  tliat  tiie  Federal 
Government  comes  to  renew  its  demand  for  indemnincation  for  losses 
sustained  in  a  war  wliicb  has  ended  so  profitably  for  itself;  for  indemni- 
fication already  richly  made  by  the  admission  of  its  vessels  into  our  ports, 
from  tlic  moment  after  the  fail  of  Napoicon.  And  this  American  Govern- 
ment, which  v,'as  content  with  the  misci-able  reasons  urged  against  it  by 
the  Government  of  the  Restoration,  whicli  bent  under  the  Restoration  be- 
cause it  acted  firmly,  which  negotiated  and  concluded  conventions  with  it, 
"without  obtaining  any  thing,  merely  inserting  vain  reservations,  tiie  value 
of  which  is  well  linown  :  this  Government  comes,  directly  after  the  revo- 
lution of  July,  summoning  «s,  with  rare  pertinacity,  to  satisfy  claims  al- 
ready  rejected  by  the  Restoration.  A  most  admirable  effect  this  is  indeed 
of  sympathy  between  the  pi'inciples  of  Governments.  I  do  not  blame,  gen- 
tlemen ;  I  only  relate.  If  blame  is  to  fail  o»i  any,  it  is  not  surely  on  the 
Federal  Goverrsment ;  Ihe  opportunity  appeared  favorable  ;  it  believed  you 
to  be  in  an  embarrassed  situation,  of  which  it  took  advantage.  Generosity 
is  no  more  a  virtue  of  cabinets  in  the  new  Morld,  than  in  the  old  ;  in  re- 
publics than  in  monarchies.  Far  from  blaming  the  Americans,  I  shoukl 
be  inclined  to  say — go  on,  you  are  in  the  riglit  track,  and  will  prosper  ;  you 
deserve  it  for  your  address. 

But  is  the  same  eulogium  to  be  bestowed  on  the  ministry  wliich,  in  1831, 
submitted  to  conditior.s  wliich  the  Restoration  had  resisted  for  fifteen 
years  ?  Did  it  fear  that  the  Federal  Government  might  not  acknowledge 
our  nev/  dynasty  ?  Of  what  impoi'taiice  is  such  an  acknowledgment  to  us  ? 
France  exists  of  itself,  and  cares  little  for  foreign  sanction.  But  such  an 
apprehension  would  have  been  ridicuhnis  ^  the  American  Government 
acknowledges  Don  Miguel  to-day,  Donna  Maria  to-morrow  ;  it  knows 
nothing  but  de  facto,  and  \cvy  properly  ridicules  our  quarrels  about  legi- 
timacy. Supj)osing  its  claims  to  have  been  ever  so  just,  the  time  of  nego- 
tiation was  badly  chosen  for  us.  Tiie  French  ministry  should  have  told 
the  Federal  Government,  that,  after  it  had  waited  so  long  and  patiently  un- 
der the  Restoration,  it  should  at  least  give  us  four  or  five  years  of  respite  ; 
it  sliould  have  sliown  that  Government  that  such  a  convention,  concluded 
so  shortly  after  t!ic  revolution  of  1830,  would  be  as  little  creditable  to 
France  as  to  the  United  States  ;  as  we  should  appear  to  be  bu}ing  their 
friendship,  and  they  to  be  selling  it.  Do  you  think,  gentlemen,  that  if  the 
ts'eaty  of  1831  were  again  to  be  concluded,  there  could  be  now  found  a 
minister  who  would  dare  subscribe  the  whole  of  its  stipulations  ? 

In  a  state  of  things  such  as  I  have  exposed,  what  signify  all  the  arith- 
metical calculations  of  the  miinstry,  and  of  the  committee,  those  old  and 
new  statements,  those  bases  of  valuation,  and  all  the  other  means  employed  to 
come  at  just  twenty-five  millions  ?  The  art  of  arranging  figures  no  doubt 
has  its  merits,  but  it  is  not  in  this  wfsy  that  such  a  question  should  have 
been  determined. 

I  now  come  to  the  third  question  proposed  by  the  committee  :  May  the 
commercial  advantages  granted  by  the  Americans  be  considered  as  sutfi- 
cJent  compensation  for  the  loss  sustained  by  French  commerce  in  conse- 
quence of  the  non-compliance  with  tho  terms  of  the  eighth  article  of  the 
treaty  of  cession  of  Louisiana  ?  On  this  question,  too,  the  American 
Government  has  amply  demonstrated  its  skill  in  negotiation.  I  do  certain- 
ly rejoice  as  much  as  any  one  in  the  advantages  which  wc  have  obtained 


444  f  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

by  the  introduction  of  the  produce  t)f  our  soil  and  industry  into  the  United 
States  ;  but  I  must  confess  that,  in  examining  the  matter  closely,  I  find 
that  tliose  of  the  advantages  from  which  we  expect  most  at  present,  might 
have  been  obtained  independently  of  the  financial  stipulation  in  the  treaty 
of  1831.  A  single  glance  will  convince  us  of  this.  See  with  how  much 
address  the  Federal  Government  proceeds  ;  it  owes  B'rance  incontestably 
indemnification  on  account  of  the  eighth  article  of  the  Louisiana  treaty. 
Does  it  acknowledge  this  from  the  first  ?  No,  it  denies  it,  raises  objec- 
tions, brings  foiward  miserable  reasons,  reasons  which  it  knows  to  be 
miserable,  and  does  not  yield  until  after  a  long  discussion.  Then  it  ap- 
pears to  resolve  upon  a  great  concession,  which  is  in  reality  no  concession 
at  all,  because  the  measure  is  not  adopted  in  consideration  of  our  interests. 
The  Federal  Government  promises  a  reduction  of  duties  on  our  wines  ;  and 
since  the  treaty  was  signed,  it  has  likewise  abolished  all  duty  on  our  silks. 
These  are  the  facts.     Now  let  us  examine  their  value  and  bearing. 

The  American  Government  is  the  only  one  in  existencei  whici),  being 
out  of  debt,  and  having  revenues  more  than  sufficient  for  its  expenses,  can 
afford  to  make  considerable  reduction  in  its  taxes.  Now,  in  the  United 
States,  the  most  productive  tax,  and  the  only  one  which  is  at  all  felt,  is  that 
levied  through  the  custom-houses  ;  therefore  any  diminution  of  the  contri- 
butions paid  by  the  people  should  begin  in  the  custom-house;  and  of  all 
the  articles  imported  into  the  United  States,  is  there  one  on  which  a  re- 
duction of  duties  could  be  made  more  suitably  than  on  French  wines?  Are 
they  not  almost  among  the  necessaries  of  life  for  the  people  of  that  coun- 
try ?  In  making  this  reduction,  the  Federal  Government  has  consulted  its 
own  interests  entirely,  and  not  ours;  and  we  can  only  admire  the  talent 
with  which  they  have  induced  us  to  receive  as  a  favor  that  which  they 
only  did  in  reality  for  their  own  advantage. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  duty  on  silks  ;  the  reduction  was  made 
there  also  on  their  own  account,  as  it  is  not  stipulated  in  tiie  treaty  ;  yet 
it  is  vaunted  as  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  treaty.  On  this  subject, 
too,  I  hear  the  name  of  Lyons  mentioned  every  where  :  **Take  care,"  it 
is  said,  <'if  we  refuse  to  sanction  the  treaty  of  1831,  Lyons  will  be  un- 
employed immediately  ;  and  what  will  become  of  that  city  ?'*  Gentlemen, 
do  not  be  afraid.  The  American  Government,  in  extinguishing  the  duty 
on  French  silks,  thought  no  more  about  France  than  about  China ;  than 
about  China,  gentlemen.  There  was  a  duty  of  SO  per  cent,  on  Chinese 
silks,  and  of  20  upon  French  silks,  previous  to  the  late  change.  The  duty 
on  our  silks  has  been  extinguished,  and  the  duty  on  Chinese  silks  has  been 
reduced  to  10  per  cent.  ;  so  the  proportion  remains  just  as  it  was.  Per- 
haps there  may  have  been  some  8th  article,  on  which  the  United  States 
had  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  Chinese  Government. 

If  the  reduction  of  the  duties  in  question  are  to  be  considered  as  a  real 
concession  on  the  part  of  the  Americans,  we  should  have,  in  like  manner, 
allowed  them  to  consider  in  the  same  light  the  assimilation  as  to  duties 
made  by  us  between  the  long  and  short  staple  cottons  of  the  United  States  : 
but,  so  far  from  doing  this,  and  indeed  with  a  view  to  relieve  the  Ameri- 
cans from  all  gratitude  on  the  subject,  our  Cabinet  has  taken  pains  to  de- 
clare that  it  was  a  measure  which  had  been  already  long  contemplated 
for  our  own  private  advantage.  The  Americans  are  not  so  candid  and 
yielding  as  we  are. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  motives  which  induced  the  Federal  Go- 


I  Doc.  ISO.   2.  J  440 

vernment  to  adopt  these  resolutions,  I  do  not  value  them  the  less  ;  but  do 
not  allow  the  threats  which  have  been  held  out  to  affect  you.  These  reso- 
lutions, which  are  undoubtedly  favorable  to  us,  were  taken  with  a  view  to 
its  own  interests,  and,  for  the  same  reasons,  it  will  maintain  them.  Itshowa 
but  little  knowledge  of  that  wise  Government ;  it  is,  indeed,  an  alTront  to 
it,  to  suppose  that  a  few  millions  of  francs  will  induce  it  to  relincjuish 
measures  adopted  after  mature  deliberation — not  in  favor  of  us,  but  en- 
tirely for  their  own  benefit. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  knows  better  than  any  other,  that, 
in  a  representative  Governmetjt,  no  political  convention  containing  a  stipu- 
lation for  any  payment  whatever  can  be  considered  definitive,  until  the  con- 
sent of  the  body  which  has  the  right  of  voting  the  appropriation  has  been 
obtained  to  that  particular  stipulation.  It  also  well  knows  that  there  are 
circumstances  in  which  public  interest  commands  the  rejection  of  an  en- 
gagement, altliough  it  has  been  signed  by  plenipotentiaries.  Thus,  in 
1807,  President  Jefferson  refused  to  give  his  sanction  to  a  treaty  concluded 
at  London  by  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney,  and  Congress  ap|)rove'J  his 
refusal.  Tlie  dignity  of  the  Cabinet  with  whicli  the  iiegotiation  was  car- 
ried on,  is  by  no  means  compromised  by  such  a  refusal ;  and  certainly  it  i.s 
never  less  a  question  of  honor  than  when  the  difficulty  is  of  a  pecuniary 
nature. 

The  honor  of  the  American  nation  cannot  be  interested  in  having  the 
French  I'reasury  delivered  as  a  prey  to  a  few  sjjcculators,  who  are  proba- 
bly not  all  Americans  ;  in  requiring  that  France  should  surrender  25,000- 
000  francs,  to  be  divided  among  tliese  speculators,  for  doubtful  claims, 
bought  at  the  lowest  price  by  the  actual  holders.  Not  only  is  the  sum 
stipulated  a  heavy  charge  on  our  Treasury,  but  there  is  in  such  conven- 
tions something  more  afflicting,  more  deplorable,  than  the  actual  loss  of 
money  ;  it  is,  that,  after  having  been  pillaged  by  our  enemies,  we  have  not 
been  spared  by  our  friends ;  it  is,  that  always  in  our  discussions  witii 
Governments,  whether  free  or  despotic,  they  come  off"  well  in  the  End,  and 
we  never. 

Gentlemen,  my  own  conviction  is  that  the  question  of  our  debt  to  the 
United  States  should  have  been  determined  upon  principles  different  from 
those  adopted  by  the  ministry. 

I  am  convinced  that,  according  to  the  principles  not  only  of  political 
equity,  but  of  natural  equity,  France  is  not  bound  to  indemnify  the  Ame- 
ricans for  the  accidental  losses  which  they  suffered  in  a  long  contest,  un- 
dertaken for  the  defence  of  common  riglits,  the  triumph  of  which  has  con- 
solidated their  power,  and  secured  to  them  immense  advantages  in  future  ; 
w  hilst  France  is  left  mutilated  and  exhausted,  having  lost  all  but  her  honor. 

I  am  convinced,  that  even  proceeding  upon  the  principles  adopted  by  the 
ministry,  as  the  numerous  frauds  practised  by  the  Americans,  with  the 
connivance  of  the  English,  must  render  it  impossible  to  ascertain  that  all 
the  confiscated  vessels  were  really  American  proj)erty,  the  debt  of  France 
might  have  been,  without  any  injustice,  reduced  to  a  moderate  amount  ; 
particularly,  as  the  Americans  had  been  recompensed  more  than  a  hun- 
dred fold  for  the  losses  sustained  during  the  war.,  by  the  greatness  of  their 
profits,  and,  still  more,  by  the  admission  of  their  vessels  into  our  ports,  in 
consequence  of  the  victories  of  our  enemies. 

I  am  convinced  that  an  arrangement  by  which  the  indemnification 
would  have  amounted  only  to  twelve  millions  of  francs,  would  have  given 


446  I    Doc.  No.  2    J 

cojisldcrablc  profits  to  the  holders  of  the  claims,  whether  good  or  bad, 
which  arc  to  be  satisfied. 

But,  gentlemen,  if  you  consent  to  pay  the  sum  stipulated  by  the  treaty 
of  1831,  let  it  lie  at  least  with  a  full  knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances 
attending  it;  let  it  pi'oceed  from  motives  more  noble  and  more  just  than 
those  whicli  have  been  set  forth.  Do  not  consent  to  this  payment  from 
the  fear  that  a  refusal,  whicli  on  your  part  sliould  only  betoken  a  wisli 
to  have  the  amount  reduced,  rnigiit  alter  the  friendly  relations  between  us 
and  the  United  States.  Your  relations  with  that  Government  would  be 
of  little  value,  indeed,  if  they  depended  on  a  few  millions  of  francs.  Do 
not  consent  from  the  fear  that  tlie  American  Government  will  re-establish 
its  former  duties  on  our  wines  ;  the  reduction  made  in  those  duties  was 
with  a  view  to  their  own  interests  much  more  than  ours  ;  and  I  do  not 
blame  them  for  it.  As  to  the  silks,  it  has  treated  us  as  it  treated 
China. 

If  you  consent,  do  so  from  considerations  more  worthy  of  yourselves 
and  of  the  American  Government.  Three  years  have  passed  without  the 
Chamber  having  had  an  oppoi-tunity  of  expressing  itself  on  the  financial 
stipulation  of  183!.  This  delay  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  us.  The  min- 
istry committed  the  fault  j  and,  unluckily,  the  nation  will  have  to  suffer 
for  it.  It  must  be  allowed  that  when  a  treaty  has  been  ratified  three  years, 
the  Government  which  is  to  benefit  by  it  should  naturally  consider  its 
rights  to  such  advantages  as  acknowledged.  This  is  in  fact  the  case  with 
the  Federal  Government  at  present ;  and  it  would  have  a  right  to  complain 
not  of  us,  but  of  our  Cabinet,  for  having  left  it  so  long  under  the  persua- 
sion that  the  stipulations  of  1831  would  be  fulfilled.  If  you  can  deter- 
mine to  make  a  sacrifice  under  these  circumstances,  it  is  important  that 
tise  Federal  Government  should  be  convinced  of  your  doing  so,  purely 
fron^.  sentiments  of  delicacy  and  generosity. 

It  would  be  ridiculous  and  shameful  to  appear  blind  or  duped  ;  to  ac- 
knowledge and  pay  as  justly  due  a  debt  so  doubtful  and  contestable.  The 
loss  of  moHey  is  of  little  consequence,  in  such  cases,  compared  with  the 
loss  of  dignity  ;  dignity  sliould  be  preserved  above  all  things.  Besides, 
whatever  we  do  should  be  done  with  an  entire  knowledge  of  circumstan- 
ces. Thus,  geritlemcn,  if,  instead  of  paying  some  millions  which  may  be 
justly  due,  you  submit  to  a  payment  of  twenty-five  millions,  which  are  not 
justly  ilna,  it  is  because  you  cannot  decently  refuse  in  1834  what  you 
would  have  refused  without  hesitation  in  1831  ;  it  is  because  you  act  in 
obedience  to  a  certain  sense  of  propriety  ;  you  yield  to  a  sort  of  moral  vio- 
lence, which  in  your  opinion  does  not  allow  you  to  recall  an  engagement 
entered  into  three  years  ago  with  a  nation  whose  friendship  is  so  dear  and 
precious  to  us. 

Pay  the  twenty-five  millions  then,  if  you  think  proper;  but,  while  paying 
them,  take  care  to  declare  that  you  do  not  owe  them. 

As  for  myself,  gentlemen,  although  the  consideration  of  propriety  is  the 
only  one  which  could  have  any  weight  w ith  me,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
admit  that  an  obligation  of  that  sort,  arising  purely  from  a  ministerial 
neglect  of  duty,  ouglit  to  prevail  so  fiir  in  a  case  of  such  importance  to  the 
public  Treasury.  It  is  because  I  honor  highly  the  Federal  Government,' 
because  I  take  great  pleasure  in  rendering  signal  homage  to  its  wisdom 
and  straight-forwardness ;  because  I  have  faith  in  its  knowledge,  in  its 
spirit  of  justice,  in  its  practical  acquaintance  with  the  riglits  and  duties  o 


I   Doc.  No.  2.  ]  447 

a  representative  Government ;  because  a  nation  so  much  enlightened  as  the 
United  States,  and  which  knows  so  well  liow  to  defend  its  own  intciests, 
could  oiily  esteem  us  more  highly  for  defending  our  own,  that  I  act  with 
regard  to  tliis  concession,  wliich  I  considerunreasonablylieavy, just  aslain 
certain  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  would  act  under  similar 
circumstances.     I  vote  against  the  bill. 

[Tliis  speech  tons  heard  with  attention,  and  appeared  to  make  agreat  im- 
pression on  the  Chamber.  The  orator^  in  descending  from  the  tribune,  re- 
ceived the  felicitations  of  a  number  of  members.     Jifter  some  interruptions  ^1 

The  Duke  de  Broglie,  [Minister  of  Foreign  affairs.] 

Allow  me,  gentlemen,  to  rectify  a  mistake  at  once. 

The  honorable  member  who  addressed  you  last,  accuses  the  French  Go- 
vernment of  having  voluntarily  delayed  presenting  the  law  now  bcfoi'c  you 
so  long,  that,  in  his  opinion,  we  cannot  possibly  retract,  and  that  the  Cliam- 
berisno  longer  at  the  same  liberty  at  which  it  would  have  been,  had  the 
law  been  presented  at  a  more  early  date. 

Gentlemen,  the  treaty  was  ratified  on  the  22d  of  February,  1832,  and 
the  law  was  presented  at  the  first  session  after  that  ratification  ;  it  was  pre- 
sented again  at  each  of  the  two  following  sessions.  You  see,  gentlemen, 
that  the  Government  could  not  have  presented  the  law  earlier  than  in  the 
session  immediately  following  the  ratification  of  the  ti-eaty. 

M.  Jay. 

It  cannot  be  expected  that  I  should  follow  the  orator  who  has 
addressed  you  so  much  at  length;  through  all  the  points  of  liis  opinio;).  I 
have  neither  the  means  nor  the  time  to  do  so  at  present.  I  only  ask  ti;c 
attention  of  the  Ciiamber  for  a  few  minutes. 

The  illustrious  General  Lafayette,  who  has  been  prevented  from  attend- 
ing to-day,  has  sent  me  som.e  notes,  which,  being  relations  of  facts,  sliould 
be  laid  before  the  Chamber.     He  says  : 

*'  But  there  are  facts  whicli  I  can  assert,  as  having  been  myself  a  witness 
to  them  ;  and  which  I  submit  to  my  honorable  colleague,  tlie  reporter  of  the 
committee, 

<M.  I  can  give  my  testimony  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  decrees  of  Berlin 
and  Milan,  before  the  seizures  and  destructions  for  which  indemnification 
is  demanded. 

**  2.  Although  the  United  States  remained  alone  out  of  the  coalition 
against  France,  the  allies  who  possessed  entire  power  over  the  Restoration 
invited  them  to  join  their  claims  with  others  which  tliey  were  causing  to  be 
accepted.  This  offer  was  indignantly  refused  by  Mr.  Crawford,  tlicn 
minister  of  the  United  States  at  Paris.  He  declared  that  his  country,  in- 
stead of  making  common  cause  with  the  enemies  of  France,  would  wait 
until  its  account  against  her  could  be  amicably  settled. 

<'  3.  I  saw  Mr.  Barlow  set  off  for  Wilna,  in  the  conviction,  from  his  cor- 
respondence with  the  Imperial  Cabinet,  that  the  claims  would  soon  be'set- 
tlcd;  and  at  the  moment  of  our  revolution  of  July,  Mr.  Rives  considered 
himself  certain  of  terminating  his  negotiation  even  witli  the  Restoration, 
which  had  no  great  affection  for  the  United  States,  on  account  of  their 
having  remained  the  friends  of  France,  whilst  itself  had  been,  during  the 
whole  period,  with  her  enemies. 

"  Among  the  classes  admitted  in  the  report,  I  do  not  see  the  seizures  at 
Jntwerp.     Although  my  recollections  of  that  affair  are  strong,  yet  I  have 


448  I    Doc.  JNo.  2.  J 

had  recourse  to  tl\c  Duke  of  Bassano,  whose  authority,  considering  the  si- 
tuation he  then  held,  is  above  that  of  any  other.  1  can  say  that  no  con- 
fiscation liad  been  pronounced  ;  that  sale  was  only  made  because  the  goods 
would  be  injured  by  keeping;  and  that  a  claim  based  on  an  act  of  the 
French  (Government  should  be  regarded  as  just ;  and,  finally,  that  this  Go- 
vernment considered  the  j)i-oduct  of  the  articles  sold  to  be  deposited  in  the 
caisse  d'amortissemenV*  us  Jmerican  property,  which  makes  an  addition  of 
more  than  two  millions,  without  counting  the  Maria,  another  vessel  and 
her  cargo,  which  were  similarly  situated. 

"It  is  from  these  positive  data,  and  from  some  others  of  the  same  nature, 
founded  on  the  fact  of  entries,  improper,  in  my  opinion,  but  effecti\e  in  the 
Treasury,  that,  even  exclusive  of  the  French  claims  against  the  United 
States,  I  had  from  my  own  judgment,  valued  the  sum  due  to  the  United 
States  at  38  millions;  and  this  amount  was  not  so  unjustifiable  as  it  has 
been  stated  to  be,  although  I  give  due  credit  to  the  ministry  which  reduced 
the  treaty  within  the  narrowest  limits.** 

You  see,  gentlemen,  from  these  facts,  that  the  assertions  of  our  honora- 
ble colleague,  M.  Bignon,  are  not  justified.  It  is  certain  that  the  Resto- 
ration entered  into  negotiations  with  the  American  Government,  and  that, 
at  the  moment  of  the  overthrow  of  the  Piestoration,  the  American  minister 
had  reason  to  think  that  the  negotiation  would  end  favorably. 

I  now  come  to  the  objections  of  the  Hon.  M.  Bignon.  He  speaks  of  the 
commission  of  1831  as  if  that  commission  could  have  afforded  a  basis  for 
the  estimate  of  the  Government,  or  for  that  of  the  committee.  The  re- 
port of  that  commission  went,  not  to  establish  a  positive  settlement,  but  to 
furnish  the  Government  with  the  means  of  making  the  sum  due  as  smaU 
as  possible. 

Your  committee  was  in  a  different  situation  from  that  of  the  commission 
of  1831.  Its  object  was  not  to  consider  about  making  a  treaty,  but  to  ex- 
amine one  already  concluded.  Thus  it  went  upon  grounds  entirely  differ- 
ent from  those  of  the  commission  of  1831. 

I  repeat,  that  we  had  no  other  grounds  for  our  estimate  than  those  pre- 
sented by  the  Government ;  and  we  were  strongly  induced,  by  the  greaS 
political  and  commercial  interests  which  make  it  imperative  upon  us  to 
keep  up  amicable  relations  with  the  United  States,  the  only  coHntry  in  re- 
ality promising  advantageous  markets  for  the  productions  of  our  commerce 
and  industry. 

M.  Bignon  justifies  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.  They  are  said  by 
him  tw  have  been  reprisals  against  England.  Gentlemen,  depredations  on 
the  commerce  of  neutrals  are  a  singular  species  of  reprisals  against  Eng- 
land. On  the  other  hand,  I  think  that  these  decrees  were  directed  against 
neutral  Powers,  which  had  never  committed  a  single  act  of  hostility  ;  that 
they  w^ere  not  reprisals,  but  really  aggressions.  Our  honorable  colleague, 
in  his  estimate  of  the  morality  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  has  for- 
gotten that  Napoleon  himself  has  arraigned  these  acts  of  his  own  adminis- 
tration, by  saying  that  they  were  a  return  to  barbarism.  And  this  return 
to  barbarism  it  is  which  you  are  called  on  to  consider  as  an  act  of  justice. 
Are  such  morals  to  be  preached  to  us  after  the  revolution  of  July?  They 
were  quite  natural  under  a  desj)otic  regime,  but  do  not  suit  a  free  people^ 

It  is  pretended  that  M.  de  Caulaincourt,  (Duke  of  Vicenza,)  in  his  re- 
port to  the  Emperor,  did  not  recognise  the  debt  to  the  United  States,  and 
that  it  was  a  mere  political  act.     Now  the  very  classes  presented  by  the 
♦  Place  of  deposite  for  funds  destined  to  the  payment  of  national  debta^ 


L  Uoc.  JNo.  'Z.  J  449 

Imperial  Government  itself,  in  1814,  have  served  as  the  basis  for  the  esti- 
mates of  the  Government,  and  for  those  of  the  committee.  So  the  debt 
was  recognised,  and  admitted  to  be  eighteen  millions.  Now,  is  twenty- 
five  millions  a  large  compensation  for  eighteen  millions  which  have  been 
due  20  years  ? 

The  ministry  of  1831  has  been  violently  attacked  ;  it  is  not  my  business 
to  justify  it,  but  it  would  be  easy  to  do  so.  You  recollect  what  was  our 
situation  then  at  home,  and  with  respect  to  other  nations.  We  had  the  ab- 
solute Kings  of  Europe  ready  to  pour  their  armies  down  upon  us.  We 
heard  daily  from  the  tribune  the  words  '<  War  is  inevitable.  There  can 
be  neither  peace  nor  truce  between  the  revolution  of  July  and  the  abso- 
lute Governments."  The  treaty  was  concluded  amidst  the  cries  of  war. 
It  was  concluded  for  the  advantage  of  France,  and  no  one  thought  of  com- 
plaining of  it.  Why  did  no  one  complain  of  this  treaty  then  ?  Because  it 
was  wise,  it  was  politic,  to  conciliate  the  friendship  of  a  maritime  Power, 
which  was  in  a  situation  to  maintain  its  neutrality,  and  which,  in  case  of 
war,  would  have  been  of  great  assistance  to  us. 

Not  wishing  to  fatigue  the  Assembly,  I  shall  say  but  little  more  in  reply 
to  the  attacks  made  against  the  ministry  of  1831,  which  has  rendered  us 
such  signal  services.  I  said  that  the  fear  of  a  European  war  was  general ; 
that  the  treaty  was  then  made  with  the  United  States  ;  and  that  no  one 
then  complained  of  it,  because  the  measure  was  wise  and  politic.  I  now 
say  that,  by  this  act  of  justice,  the  ministry  inspired  great  confidence  in 
the  revolution,  and  in  the  Government  of  July.  Instead  of  blame,  it  de- 
serves nothing  but  praise,  for  concluding  the  treaty. 

[Jlfter  some  interruptions]  M.  Auguis. 

After  the  speech  which  has  been  delivered  from  this  tribune  by  the  hon- 
orable M.  Bignon,  there  remains  little  for  me  to  say  ;  yet  there  are  some 
observations  which  I  ask  permission  of  the  Chamber  to  submit. 

You  have  been  informed  of  the  decisions  of  the  British  cabinet,  which 
declared  the  ports  of  France  in  a  state  of  blockade,  and  of  the  imperial 
decrees,  which,  in  retaliation,  interdicted  all  communication  between  the 
ports  of  Great  Britain  and  the  Continent. 

The  United  States  of  America,  feeling  their  interests  aggrieved,  deemed 
it  their  duty  to  adopt  restrictive  measures.  The  bill  of  the  1st  of  March, 
1809,  was  the  consequence,  upon  which  sufficient  stress  has  not  been  laid  ; 
it  provided  that  the  productions  of  neither  the  French  nor  English  soil 
should  be  admitted  into  the  United  States. 

It  is  important  to  establish  these  facts,  in  order  to  show,  in  the  clearest 
manner,  that  England  began;  that  the  United  States,  injured  in  their  in- 
terests, had  followed  the  example  of  England  ;  and  tliat  France,  looking 
to  her  own  preservation,  and  the  defence  of  the  interests  of  her  commerce, 
could  only  resort  to  reprisals  under  these  difficult  circumstances. 

It  is  likewise  asserted  that  the  interests  of  the  three  commercial  Powers, 
France,  England,  and  the  United  States,  had  suffered  alike  ;  but  the  United 
States  alone  now  demand  indemnification  for  losses  which  they  sustained 
from  1807  to  1811,  inclusive. 

If,  gentlemen,  you  admit  the  claim  which  is  now  made,  you  must  neces- 
sarily expect  to  see  new  ones  arise,  and  of  greater  magnitude  too.  It  has 
been  said,  though  as  yet  vaguely,  still  it  has  been  represented,  that  indem* 
nifications  will  be  asked  by  Poland,  which  suflfered  immense  losses  during 
its  occupation  by  France.     I  entreat  you  to  recollect  that  there  already 


450  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

exists,  near  tlie  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  a  commission  denominated  the 
commission  of  Warsaw.  We  do  not  yet  know  the  result  of  tlie  labors  of 
this  commission;  but  it  is  to  be  supposed,  when  the  accounts  are  rendered, 
you  will  have  to  pay  Poland,  or,  more  correctly  speaking,  Russia,  an  in- 
demnification much  more  considerable  tiurn  that  now  demanded  of  you  by 
the  United  States. 

It  is  not  the  only  claim  of  this  nature  with  which  you  are  threatened. 
There  is  another  demand  in  store  from  Denmark,  on  account  of  the  bom- 
bardment of  Copenhagen.  Although  this  event  seems  of  so  old  a  date,  yet, 
encouraged  by  the  example  of  the  United  States,  Denmark  is  on  the  point 
of  preferring  a  claim  to  which  you  cannot  refuse  to  do  justice,  if  you  admit 
that  which  is  now  demanded  by  the  Americans. 

There  are  yet  other  claims  of  the  same  nature.  You  will  call  to  mind, 
gentlemen,  that  England  seized  upon  the  Dutch  fleet,  because  Holland, 
adopting  the  French  system,  incurred  the  displeasure  of  England.  There 
will  be  an  opportunity  for  a  long  account.  The  time  is  not  yet  arrived,  it 
is  true,  because  the  French  Government  is  in  a  delicate  situation  with 
respect  to  the  Government  of  Holland.  [Laiighter.]  But  when  the  difficulties 
which  at  this  moment  exist  shall  be  settled,  a  new  account  will  be  placed 
before  you,  and  they  will  come  armed  with  the  precedent  which  you  will 
have  this  day  settled  ;  and  you  cannot,  without  a  denial  of  justice,  altogetlier 
unworthy,  refuse  that  to  Holland  which  you  have  accorded  to  the  United 
States. 

Spain  herself,  whose  fleet  subsequently  became  the  property  of  England 
from  the  same  causes,  will  not  fail  to  address  to  you  her  just  demands,  and 
you  cannot  but  yield  them  a  favorable  reception. 

There  are  other  debts  of  the  same  nature,  from  which  it  will  be  difiicult 
to  escape,  gentlemen.  There  are  the  Lithuanian  debts,  accepted  by  France, 
and  authenticated  by  the  signature  of  the  agents  sent  by  the  French  Go- 
vernment to  Lithuania,  and  which  are  unpaid,  because  the  financial  state  of 
France  did  not  afford  the  means  to  meet  such  demands. 

There  are  others  which  have  been  presented  by  Dalmatia  and  Spain. 
These  debts  have  been  liquidated;  the  sums  have  been  determined  ;  and, 
moreover,  you  have  rejected  them,  because  your  finances  are  not  yet  in  a 
state  to  permit  you  to  receive  them  favorably. 

The  United  States  now  demand  of  you  indemnifications  to  the  amount  of 
twenty-five  millions  ;  you  have  been  reminded,  from  this  tribune,  that  this 
demand,  in  the  beginning,  as  in  1812,  was  seventy  millions,  and  had  been 
presented  with  that  sum  by  Mr.  Barlow.  Subsequently,  Mr.  Rives  re- 
duced the  sum,  and  it  gradually  fell  to  twenty-five  millions.  Gentlemen, 
either  France  owes  the  United  States  the  sum  of  seventy  millions,  or  owes 
them  nothing.     [Exclamations.] 

Every  one  is  entitled  to  his  own  opinion  in  these  matters. 

It  appears  to  me  extraordinary  that  a  Governme})t  which  pretends  to 
have  a  well  founded  claim  to  a  sum  of  seventy  millions,  should  consent  to 
reduce  it  to  twenty-five  millions. 

The  honorable  M.  Bignon  told  you  from  this  tribune,  that  the  Imperial 
Government,  either  from  slight  examinations,  or  from  interests  purely 
political,  because  it  felt  tiie  necessity  of  conciliating  tiic  United  States,  in 
order  to  establish  a  counterpoise  to  England,  had  considered  tliat  eighty 
licenses  should  be  granted  to  the  United  States  as  indemnification  for  the 
sums  which  were  at  that  period  claimed. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  451 

If  gentlemen  will  take  the  trouble  to  refer  to  that  time,  they  may  form  an 
estimate  of  the  value  of  eighty  licenses  under  the  Imperial  Government. 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  from  this  tribune  that  they  were  equivalent  to 
a  capital  of  eighty  millions.  And  what  is  now  demanded  of  you  ?  Only 
twenty-five  millions,  that  is  to  say,  two-thirds  less  than  what  was  first 
claimed. 

Gentlemen,  M.  Bignon  has  perfectly  established  that,  by  their  carrying 
trade  and  agencies,  the  United  States  were  more  than  indemnified  for  the 
losses  which  they  had  sustained  for  all  their  vessels  sunk  or  seized,  or 
cargoes  sold.  They  now  demand  of  us  indemnification  ;  but,  I  repeat 
it,  the  Union  has  been  already  more  tlian  indemnified. 

I  had  intended  to  present  to  the  Chamber  a  statement  of  the  debts  of  the 
United  States  to  France,  balanced  by  those  of  France  to  the  United  States, 
anterior  to  the  treaty  of  navigation  of  tlie  1 1th  Vendemiairc,  in  the  year  9, 
(September  30th,  1800.)  But  in  consequence  of  the  observation  which  was 
made  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Afi\\irs,  that  this  treaty  had  closed  all 
accounts,  I  have  renounced  tiic  intention  which  I  had  at  first  formed,  of 
showing  wliat  sacrifices  France  had  made  in  favor  of  the  United  States, 
from  1777  to  1833,  since,  by  that  treaty,  the  account  has  been  definitively 
settled. 

But  there  is  another  treaty,  the  stipulations  of  which  liave  not  been  exe- 
cuted on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  as  has  been  established  from  this 
tribune.  It  is  the  treaty  of  1803,  by  which  France  ceded  Louisiana  to  the 
United  States.  Now,  it  woMld  be  desirable  that  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee iiad  indicated,  in  some  way,  how  this  treaty  had  been  executed,  and 
how  the  payments  had  been  made  to  France. 

The  most  profound  silence  has  been  maintained  relative  to  the  execution 
of  this  treaty.  I  remember  that,  besides  the  extinction  of  all  the  claims 
which  the  United  States  pretended  to  have  upon  France,  they  agreed  to  pay 
to  the  French  Government  the  sum  of  thirty-six  millions. 

It  appears  to  me  that  it  would  have  been  a  matter  of  some  importance  to 
have  shown  to  us  the  manner  in  which  tiiesc  thirty-six  millions  had  been 
paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  State ;  it  has  not  been  done,  and  yet  it  was 
important  to  tell  us. 

Gentlemen,  when  we  follow  the  different  phases  through  which  the 
amount  of  this  claim  has  passed,  we  are  astonished  to  see  that  it  has  dwin- 
dled, as  I  iiave  already  informed  you,  to  twenty-five  millions  ;  and,  as  I  am 
well  informed,  at  another  time  and  under  other  circumstances,  the  preten- 
sions of  the  Union  were  much  lower  than  they  were  in  1831. 

In  cftcct,  under  the  Government  of  Louis  XVIII,  they  would  have  been 
content  with  ten  millions,  and,  subsequently,  eight  millions  would  have 
been  accepted  under  the  Government  of  Charles  X. 

It  is  true,  as  the  reporter  of  the  committee  has  told  you,  that  times  have 
changed  ;  that  the  French  Government  having  a  common  origin  with  the 
American  Government,  political  considerations  should  be  admitted  into  the 
account,  v.hich,  added  to  the  financial  considerations,  ought  necessarily  to 
produce  tlie  acceptance  of  the  demand  now  urged.  Commercial  considera- 
tions have  been  added  to  these  political  views.  You  have  been  told  to-day 
that  the  exportations  from  France  to  the  States  of  the  Union  were  so  con- 
siderable, tiiat  France  could  witli  an  ill  grace  refuse  to  grant  something  for 
a  market  which  offered  so  many  advantages  to  her  commerce. 

Well  !  I  ask  you  !  Do  you  believe  that  if  these  twcnty-five  millions  now 


452        .  I  Uoc.  JNo.  2.  J 

claimed  by  the  Union  be  not  granted,  the  commerce  of  France  with  the 
United  States  will  suffer  from  restrictions  ?  For  myself,  I  do  not  believe 
it ;  it  is  not  in  the  hope  that  the  United  States  will  be  paid  from  the  twenty- 
five  millions  which  they  claim,  that  our  commercial  exchanges  can  be  to 
the  advantage  of  France.  It  is  only  because  the  United  States  receive  from 
them  great  advantages  for  themselves  ;  for,  do  not  deceive  yourselves,  it  is 
their  own  interest  which  governs  them  in  that  circumstance.  You  have 
been  told  of  the  exportation  of  fifty  millions  of  silks  ordered  from  Lyons 
to  the  United  States — do  you  believe  that  it  was  with  the  demand  of  twen- 
ty-five millions  in  perspective,  that  these  fifiy  millions  of  silks  were  order- 
ed from  Lyons  ?  No,  the  twenty-five  millions  demanded  could  not  and  did 
not  have  the  least  influence  upon  the  orders  which  were  given  to  the  second 
city  of  the  kingdom. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  pay  some  attention  to  the  reduction  in  the  ex- 
portations  from  France  to  our  colonies,  you  must  admit  that  this  differ- 
ence proceeds  from  the  introduction  of  American  goods.  In  fact,  it  has 
been  staled,  and  I  believe  correctly,  that  France  formerly  exported  to  her 
colonies  seventy-five  millions  of  her  products,  and  now,  gentlemen,  these 
exports  do  not  amount  to  forty-five  millions,  and  notwithstanding  the  wants 
of  the  colonies  have  not  been  lessened  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  greater. 
Gentlemen,  you  cannot  explain  this  reduction  in  the  amount  of  our  exporta- 
tions,  but  by  the  introduction  of  goods  which  the  Anglo-Americans  import 
into  our  colonies,  to  the  exclusion  of  French  merchandise.  I  ask  the 
Chamber  if,  with  so  many  resources,  so  many  advantages,  when  the  United 
States,  down  to  the  restoration  of  1814,  have  been  the  commercial  agents 
and  carriers  of  all  Europe,  when  they  have  exported  sometimes  under  one 
flag,  sometimes  under  another,  every  description  of  merchandise,  when 
they  have  been  benefited  in  every  way,  indemnification  is  due  to  them, 
above  all,  since  it  would  open  the  way  to  so  many  claims  which  will  arise 
on  all  sides. 

I  conceive  very  well  that  the  constitutional  sympathies  which  exist  be- 
tween America  and  France  may  engage  us  to  do  for  that  country  what  we 
would  not  grant  to  certain  other  countries ;  but  as  it  is  a  question  of  ac- 
counts, a  question  of  money  to  be  paid  by  the  people,  it  should  be  closely 
looked  into. 

One  other  observation  is  important.  Observe  that  it  is  not  one  nation  in 
the  presence  of  another  nation,  placing  national  interests  against  other  na- 
tional interests.  What  does  North  America  demand  of  you  ?  She  demands 
indemnification  for  losses,  a  statement  of  which  has  been  made  out  and  pre- 
sented in  the  report  of  your  committee. 

It  is  not  then  a  national  interest — it  is  an  aggregate  of  individual  inte- 
rests. 

I  know  that  it  will  be  observed,  in  reply,  that  the  interests  of  a  nation 
are  only  composed  of  individual  interests.  However,  the  two  should  not 
be  confounded  on  this  occasion. 

You  have  been  presented  with  the  list  of  names  of  vessels  captured  at 
such  a  time,  sold  at  such  a  time, some  at  St.  Sebastian,  others  at  Bayonne, 
others  at  Antwerp.  You  have  had  accounts  of  vessels  destroyed  by  our 
military  expeditions,  in  order  to  deceive,  or  for  the  purpose  of  concealing 
their  destination. 

If  there  is  a  thing  difficult,  or  rather  impossible  to  determine,  it  is  the 
number  of  vessels  which  have  been  sunk  by  our  ships  of  war  upon  their 
expeditions. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  453 

You  arc  told  that  an  estimate  has  heen  made.  I  do  not  doiiht  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  estimate  which  has  been  submitted  to  the  committee  j  but  I 
may  be  allowed  to  believe  that  tiiere  are  some  things  which  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  prove,  and  this  is  one  of  them. 

Gentlemen,  in  accepting  the  enumeration,  the  calculation  of  these  ves- 
sels, of  their  value  and  the  amount  of  their  cargoes,  I  ask  if  the  French 
Government  siiould  not  be  placed  in  the  same  situation  with  the  American 
Government,  viz.  If,  on  its  side,  it  ouglit  not  to  present  to  the  United 
States  a  statement  of  individual  claims  which  could  be  preferred  by  France 
against  the  United  States. 

It  is  true,  as  stated  in  the  report,  that  a  sum  of  1,500,000  francs  will  be 
retained  to  meet  the  claims  made  by  individuals  ;  but,  gentlemen,  to  deter- 
mine tliis  sum,  the  amount  of  the  claims  should  be  known,  as  well  of 
those  addressed  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  as  of  those  to  the  Go- 
vernment. Yesterday  and  this  morning  memoranda  were  distributed, 
wliich  pi-esented  an  enormous  amount. 

I  declare  that  1  would  not  vouch  for  the  exactness  of  these  sums.  I 
neitlier  know  the  individuals  who  present  these  claims,  nor  their  validity  ; 
but  I  have  read  with  scrupulous  care  the  memorials  which  have  been  pre- 
sented. One  of  these  claims  alone  amounts  to  more  than  two  millions  and 
a  half. 

Some,  it  is  true,  are  of  an  older  date,  for  one  of  them  is  dated  1718,  or 
1719.  It  is  about  a  grant  made  to  Law,  author  of  the  famous  Mississipj)i 
scheme,  in  wdiich  the  greater  part  of  the  inhabitants  of.  the  capital  were 
ruined.  I  do  not  say  that  the  claim  is  well  founded,  but  it  is  presented  in 
the  most  serious  maimer,  and  tiie  land  in  question  is  stated  as  being  nine 
square  leagues  in  extent,  which  would  be  of  considerable  value  in  that 
country. 

Something  is  said  too  about  six  thousand  Germans  who  were  sent  for- 
merly to  that  country,  at  an  enormous  expense  to  the  Governments  which 
undertook  the  enterprise.  As  these  countries  now  form  part  of  Louisiana, 
and  are  under  the  American  dominion,  I  do  not  know  if  the  claim  be  not 
worth  examining. 

You  are  likewise  presented  with  the  claim  of  a  Sieur  Renault,  who  is 
said  to  have  settled  in  the  country  of  lead  mines,  and  to  have  carried  with 
iiim  five  hundred  workmen,  who  made  valuable  improvements,  and  merit- 
ed the  gratitude  of  the  country. 

There  arc  still  other  claims,  such  as  tiiat  of  the  Count  Coetlogon,  of 
great  amount. 

Gentlemen,  I  believe  that  an  attentive  examination  should  be  made  of  all 
these  claims,  in  order  to  ascertain  which  should  be  paid,  throwing  aside 
those  which  merit  no  attention  ;  and  that  the  Fi-ench  claims  thus  ])rcfcrred 
shall  be  made  offsets  to  the  claims  of  the  United  States,  in  settling  the 
amount ;  provided  always,  it  be  acknowledged  in  principle  that  any 
thing  is  due  to  the  United  States.  As  for  myself,  I  believe,  after  the  expo- 
*sition  of  the  facts  which  have  been  made  from  this  tribune,  that  France 
not  only  stands  acquitted  towards  the  United  States,  but  that,  if  tli«rc  is  a 
debt  existing  between  the  countries,  it  will  be  found  that  France  has  a 
claim  upon  the  Union. 


454  L  I>oc.  No.     .  J 

Monday,  March  31,  1B34. 

M.  Realier  Dumas. 

Gentlemen:  The  honor  and  the  interests  of  France,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  friendly  ties  which  connect  us  with  tlie  United  States  on  the  other, 
combine  to  render  the  question  now  under  consideration  one  of  no  little 
delicacy  and  embarrassment,  whenever  made  the  subject  of  debate  in  this 
Assembly,  For  which  reason,  your  committee  were  anxious  to  foresee,  and, 
clearly  to  define  beforehand,  the  difficulties  which  might  arise  during  the 
discussion.  Our  worthy  colleague,  M.  Jay,  has  set  forth,  in  a  report, 
which  does  him  no  less  honor  as  a  man  than  as  a  writer,  tiie  principles 
upon  which  these  difficulties  might  have  been  removed.  As  a  member  of 
this  committee,  I  have  deemed  it  my  duty  to  step  forth  in  defence  and  sup- 
port of  the  conclusions  therein  embraced,  convinced  that  they  aie  founded 
upon  the  principles  of  national  and  universal  right,  on  justice,  and  on  the 
true  interests  of  our  commercial  relations  with  the  United  States.  Our 
honorable  colleague,  M.  Bignon,  may  rest  assured  it  is  not  a  mere  act  of 
generosity,  much  less  a  sacrifice  to  cabinet  policy,  but  an  ace  of  justice, 
which  the  committee  demand,  in  presenting  for  your  sanction  this  treaty 
between  France  and  the  United  States.  It  is  now  twenty  years  since  the 
Federal  Government  first  claimed  indemnification  for  vessels  seized  and 
confiscated,  not  only  under  tiie  Berlin,  Milan  and  Rambouill6t  decrees, 
but  after  the  repeal  of  tliose  decrees.  It  is  also  demanded  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  vessels  burnt  at  sea  by  French  squadrons,  whose  object  it  was,  in 
this  way,  to  conceal  from  the  enemy  the  secrets  of  their  expeditions.  Mean- 
wliile,  France  had,  on  her  part,  to  make  good  pretensions  which  are  not 
without  their  share  of  importance.  Long  negotiations  were  held  at  the 
close  of  the  empire  and  under  the  Restoration,  but  without  any  result. 
They  were  only  resumed  at  the  period  of  our  glorious  revolution.  On  the 
4th  of  July,  1831,  was  signed  the  convention  which  defines  and  fixes  the 
rights  of  the  two  contracting  parties,  subject  however  to  the  concurrence 
of  the  Chambers,  which  concurrence  it  this  day  demands,  in  the  execution 
of  the  financial  part  of  the  treaty.  This  treaty  embraces  two  things  en- 
tirely distinct :  the  one  relates  to  the  confiscation  of  American  vessels  du- 
ring the  continental  blockade  ;  the  other,  to  the  non-execution  of  the  treaty 
for  the  cession  of  Louisiana,  the  8th  article  of  which  secures  to  the  com- 
merce of  France  the  benefits  since  rendered  null  by  the  treaty  of  Ghent, 
concludedjbetween  England  and  the  United  States. 

Touching  the  first  question,  the  French  Governn^ent  engages  to  pay  the 
United  States  twenty-five  millions  of  francs  for  seizures,  confiscations, 
and  other  losses  sustained  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  of  which,  how- 
ever, 1,500,000  francs  are  retained  to  indemnify  French  citizens,  to  whom 
the  United  States  are  indebted,  and  whose  claims  are  of  the  same  nature 
with  tiiose  of  the  Federal  Government. 

With  respect  to  the  second  question,  the  French  Government  renounces, 
absolutely  and  explicitly,  all  pretensions  basedonthe  non-execution  of  the 
treaty  for  the  cession  of  Louisiana.  It  reduces,  in  favor  of  American  com- 
merce', the  duty  on  long  staijle  cottons  to  the  same  standard  as  that  on  sJiort 
staple.  In  return  for  these  advantages,  the  American  Government  consents 
to  a  reduction,  for  ten  years,  of  the  duties  on  French  wiiles  imported  for 
consumption  in  the  United  States. 

The  committee,  to  enable  themselves  fully  to  explain  their  views  of  the 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  455 

bill  which  has  been  submitted  to  you,  were  bound  to  make,  and  have  made, 
the  most  cai-eful  and  minute  examination  of  all  the  facts,  all  the  claims, 
and  all  the  negotiations  commenced,  suspended  and  resumed,  from  1812  to 
tlKj  date  of  the  signature  of  the  treaty.  As  it  is  necessary,  in  order  fully 
to  comprehend  the  great  question  now  before  you,  thoroughly  to  understand 
and  a])preciatc  these  facts,  these  demands,  and  the  negotiations  respecting 
them,  I  shall  end'^avor  briefly  to  define  and  elucidate  them.  England  had 
taken  advantage  of  the  first  wars  of  our  revolution  to  seize  upon  the  com- 
merce of  the  wh(de  of  Europe.  Between  the  24th  of  June,  1803,  and  the 
18th  of  May,  1806,  she  placed  in  a  state  of  blockade  not  only  all  the  ports 
of  France,  but  all  those  situated  on  the  Ems,  the  Wescr,  the  Elbe,  and 
the  Trave.  The  empire  of  the  sea  was  wholly  hers.  It  was  then  that 
Napoleon  conceived  a  project  as  vast  as  was  his  genius — a  project  which 
would  have  been  less  the  subject  of  invective,  had  it  been  tVom  the  first 
properly  understood.  I  allude  to  the  continental  system.  On  the  21st  of 
November,  1806,  he  issued  a  decree  at  Berlin,  which  declared  the  British 
islands  to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade,  and  enjoined  the  scizui'c  of  all  vessels 
belonging  to  England  and  her  colonies.  This  decree  was  followed  by  the 
two  orders  of  the  English  Admiralty,  of  the  rth  of  January  and  11th  of 
November,  1807.  The  former  forbade  all  commerce  between  the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  ports  of  Europe,  which  were  in  a  state  of  war- 
fare w  ith  Great  Britain.  The  latter  declared  that  American  vessels  should 
be  boarded  at  sea,  their  cargoes  conveyed  to  and  landed  in  England,  and  sub- 
jected to  the  regulation  and  laws  of  re-exportation  ;  whereupon,  the  decrees 
of  the  29th  of  November  and  ITth  of  December,  1807,  were  issued  by  Na- 
poleon at  Milan. 

The  first  ordered  the  seizure  and  confiscation  of  all  vessels  which,  after 
touching  in  England,  should  enter  the  ports  of  France.  'I'he  second  de- 
clared all  vessels  which  should  undergo  a  visit  from  an  English  vessel, 
and  pay  any  duty  whatever  to  the  British  Government,  to  have  lost  their 
nationality  fdenationalisc.J  Napoleon  should  have  waited  till  t!ie  United 
States  had  caused  their  neutrality  to  be  respected  by  England,  lie  did  not. 
An  immense  number  of  American  vessels  were  seized  either  in  the  ports 
of  Fiajice,  or  in  those  in  possession  of  her  troops  or  of  her  allies.  The 
Federal  Government  restricted  itself  to  the  passing  of  a  law  on  the  22d  of 
December,  1807,  by  which  an  embargo  was  laid  on  all  the  ports  of  the 
Union.  No  American  vessel  was  permitted  to  sail  fop  a  foreign  port.  This 
law,  which  was  meant  not  as  an  act  hostile  to  France,  but  merely  as  a 
means  of  self-preservation,  failed  to  produce  its  proposed  effects,  because 
American  captains  remained  in  Europe,  became  agents  for  the  commerce  of 
other  nations,  and  thus  were  rendered  subject  to  the  effects  of  the  Berliu  and 
Milan  decrees.  On  the  1st  of  March,  1809,  for  the  embargo  acl  was  sub- 
stituted the  non-inicrcourse  ad,  which  extended  only  to  England  and 
France.  This  law  ordered  the  seizure  of  all  Fi-ench  vessels,  and,  more- 
over, declared  that  the  confiscations  which  might  be  made  should  not  cease 
to  have  effect,  even  though  amicable  relations  should  be  re-established  be- 
tween the  two  countries. 

This  act,  which  was  equivalent  to  a  hostile  proceeding  against  France, 
induced  the  Emperor  to  make  reprisals.  On  the  10th  of  February,  IS  10, 
he  caused  to  be-issued  a  secret  order  to  seize  at  St.  Sebastian,  and  carry  to 
Bayonnc,  to  be  there  sold,  the  several  American  vessels  which,  be  it  remem- 
bered, would  not  have  entered  the  ports  of  Biscay  but  for  the  promise  of 


456  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

the  French  authorities  that  tlieir  -property  should  he  respected.  He  did 
more.  lie  issued,  on  the  £3d  of  March,  1809,  a  decree  at  Ramhouillet, 
which  declared  that  all  vessels  sailing  under  the  flag  of  the  United  States 
should  be  seized,  and  that  tlie  proceeds  accruing  from  their  sale  should  go 
into  the  sinking  fund.  These  violent  proceedings  on  both  sides  tended  to 
stir  up  feelings  of  strife  between  two  nations  which  ought  really  to  have 
been  confederated.  A  community  of  interests,  an  absence  of  all  political 
rivalry,  should,  it  would  seem,  have  ensured  to  them  the  most  amicable 
relations,  the  most  perfect  mutual  understanding.  Advances  were  first 
made  by  America  to  France  at  a  time  when  France  had  not  so  much  as 
thought  of  making  them  to  America. 

On  tlie  1st  of  May,  1810,  a  law  was  passed  by  the  United  States,  sus- 
pending the  prior  enactments  relative  to  non-intercourse,  and  giving 
France  and  England  till  the  1st  of  March,  1811,  to  repeal  their  respect- 
ive decrees.  This  law  was  communicated  by  Mr.  Armstrong,  the  i-e- 
presentative  of  the  United  States,  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  who, 
in  his  note  to  him  of  the  5th  of  August,  1810,  stated  that  the  decrees  of 
Milan  and  Berlin  were  revoked,  and  that  they  would  cease  to  have  effect 
from  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  should  the  English  have  then  withdrawn 
their  orders  in  council,  or  the  Americans  have  forced  them  to  lespect  the 
neutrality  of  the  Union.  It  is  painful  to  mention  that  it  was  on  tliis  very 
5th  of  August,  1810,  at  the  moment  when  a  reconciliation  was  about  to  take 
place  between  the  two  countries,  that  the  Emperor  issued  a  decree  order- 
ing that  the  proceeds  accruing  from  the  sale  of  American  merchandise, 
and  previously  deposited  in  the  caisse  d''amortissement,  should  be  transferred 
to  till!  public  Treasury.  It  is  well  to  mark  the  effect  which  the  note  of  the  5th 
of  August,  1810,  had  on  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  On  the  29th 
of  November,  the  President  announced  by  proclamation  the  repeal  of 
the  French  decrees,  and  summoned  England  to  retract  her  admiralty  or- 
ders. This  the  British  Government  having  refused  to  do,  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  on  the  £d  of  March,  1811,  revoked  the  suspension  of  the 
non-intercourse  act  with  respect  to  England.  Nevertheless,  and  I  say  it 
with  regret,  the  condemnations  of  American  vessels  continued,  not  only 
after  the  note  of  the  5th  of  August,  but  subsequently  even  to  the  1st  of  No- 
vember, 1810.  Besides,  it  was  not  till  the  10th  of  May,  1812,  that  Mr. 
Barlow,  the  minister  of  the  United  States,  received  the  decree  of  the  28th  of 
August,  1811,  which  repealed  the  decrees  of  Milan  and  Ramhouillet,  the 
repeal  to  take  effect  from  the  1st  of  November,  1810.  Mr.  Barlow 
hastened  to  communicate  this  decree  to  the  Englisli  Government,  which 
thereupon  withdrew,  on  the  12th  of  June,  its  orders  in  council.  But  it  was 
too  late — the  United  States  had  declared  war  against  England. 

Such  are  the  facts  on  which  the  Americans  rest  their  claims  for  indem- 
nification. I  shall  now  come  to  the  negotiations.  Tiiey  were  begun  and  pro- 
secuted by  Mr.  Barlow,  in  1812,  who  met  with  his  death  amid  the  snows 
of  P(dand,  whither  he  had  gone  at  the  invitation  of  tlie  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs.  The  amount  then  claimed  by  the  United  States  was^  as  high  as 
seventy  millions.  A  report  had  been  communicated  to  the  Emperor,  by 
the  Duke  of  Vicenza,  under  date  of  the  11th  January,  1814,  wherein  the 
minister  declared  that  indemnification  ought  not  to  be  allowed  for  vessels 
Seized  in  virtue  of  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  with  the  exception, 
first,  of  those  seized  since  the  1st  of  November,  1810  ;  secondly,  of  those 
confiscated  prior  to  their  knowledge  of  these  decrees  ;  thirdly,  of  ships 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  457 

burnt  at  sea  ;  anil,  fourthly,  of  those  seized  at  St.  Sebastian  ;  tlie  amount  of 
in(lemnificatif)n  for  all  which  therein  allowed  by  the  Duke  was  t'iirtecn 
millions,*  but,  as  he  deemed  the  list  of  vessels  incomplete,  he  proposed  to 
make  it  eighteen  millions. 

Tiie  Restoration  had  no  great  regard  for  a  Government  based  on  the 
principle  of  popular  supremacy.  It  did  not  dispute  the  justice  of  those 
claims  of  the  United  States ;  but  it  was  fertile  in  excuses  for  evading  a 
question  which  it  was  no  part  of  its  policy  frankly,  and  openly  to  meet. 
This  was  not  the  case  after  the  revolution  of  July.  France  felt  the  neces- 
sity and  the  expediency  of  a  more  strict  union  with  a  Government  which, 
based  like  her  own  on  the  principle  of  liberty,  jiad  proved  faithful  to  her 
cause  at  a  time  when  victory  had  abandoned  it.  A  commission  was  named  ; 
the  principles  which  had  been  assumed  by  the  Duke  of  Viccnza,  in  1814, 
were  made  the  basis  of  decision.  United  as  to  the  principle  of  indemnifica- 
tion, they  were  divided  as  to  the  question  of  the  amount  to  be  paid.  By  the 
majority  it  was  fixed  at  twelve  millio?)s  of  francs  ;  by  the  minority  raised  to 
thirty  millions.  This  sum,  however,  fell  far  short  of  that  dcntanded,  in  1831, 
by  Mr.  Rives,  the  negotiator  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  who  produced 
claims  for  four  hundred  and  eighty-five  prizes,  the  value  of  which  was  esti- 
mated at  70,560,000  francs,  but  at  length  reduced  to  70,000,000.  Such  were 
the  conflicting  principles  of  the  negotiation,  when  the  convention  between 
France  and  the  United  States,  of  the  4th  of  July,  1831,  was  concluded.  It 
becomes  us  now  to  examine  whether  the  treaty  accords  with  the  principles  of 
strict  justice,  and  of  the  true  commeicial  interests  with  France.  The 
questions  which  naturally  present  themselves  to  the  minds  of  your  com- 
mittee are  the  following  : 

Are  the  United  States  entitled  to  indemnification  ?  If  entitled,  do  we 
owe  them  twenty-five  millions  ? 

Are  the  benefits  secured  to  our  commerce  by  the  treaty  in  question,  a 
sufficient  compensation  for  the  loss  sustained  from  the  non-execution  of  the 
Bill  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession  of  Louisiana  ? 

It  was  the  wish  of  youi'  committee,  in  oi'der  to  arrive  at  a  solution  of  the 
fii-st  question,  to  obtaiti  a  perfect  knowledge  of  all  the  demands  made  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  on  that  of  France.  Feai'ing  that  the 
Duke  of  Yicenza  might,  \u  1811,  have  consulted  the  interests  of  the  impe- 
rial policy  rather  than  those  of  justice  ;  that  the  decision  of  the  commission 
of  1831  might  have  been  too  severe,  from  their  not  having  before  them  many 
of  the  documents  since  furnished,  or  that  the  Government  may  have  been 
too  indulgent,  each  demand  was  separately  made  t!»e  subject  of  minute  exa- 
mination, and  submitted  to  the  tests  of  the  strict  principles  of  right  and  the 
most  exact  rules  of  justice. 

Among  the  numerous  pretensions  of  the  United  States,  there  are  many 
which  cannot  be  made  the  subject  of  grave  discussion  ;  but  there  is  one 
which  merits  the  most  profound  consideration.  It  respects  the  question 
whether  the  French  Government  bad  a  right  to  seize  and  confiscate  ves- 
sels sailing  under  the  protection  of  a  neutral  flag,  I'ecognised  as  such  by 
various  treaties.  The  United  States  refer  to  the  treaty  of  1800,  based  on 
the  liberal  principle  that  the  Jlag  covers  the  property,  as  strictly  entitling 
them  to  indemnification  for  all  seiztn-es  made  in  virtue  of  the  decrees  of 
Berlin,  Milah  and  Rambouillet.  Your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  the 
decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  were,  in  a  manner,  forced  on  the  Imperial 
Government  by  the  first  of  all  laws,  that  which  allows  the  means  of  self- 
SO 


458  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

defence  and  self-preservation.  These  decrees  were  acts  of  retaliation  against 
a  hostile  Power.  Their  intention  was  not  in  any  way  hostile  to  the  United 
States.  They  forhade  thcni,  it  is  true,  all  commerce  with  England  ;  but 
did  they  not,  in  exchange,  open  to  them  the  ports  and  ensure  to  them  the 
supply  of  the  whole  Continent  ?  Instead  of  complaining,  they  ought  to 
have  thanked  the  Emperor  for  these  decrees,  as  the  very  source  of  the 
commercial  prosperity  which  th^y  have  since  attained.  The  Federal  Go- 
vernment should  have  caused  its  neutrality  to  he  respected  by  England  at 
an  earlier  day.  It  was  not  in  1812,  but  in  1807,  that  the  honor,  the  dig- 
nity, the  interests  of  the  United  States  demanded  from  them  a  declaration 
of  war  with  Great  Britain.  Had  this  declaration  then  been  made,  the 
empire  would  have  escaped  its  own  disasters  j  England  would  have  recog- 
nised the  liberty  of  the  seas;  and  the  union  would  have  preserved  the  im- 
mense benefits  which  our  policy  ensured  to  it,  and  have  avoided  the  war 
which  it  was,  after  all,  forced  to  declare  in  1812. 

With  what  reason  can  the  United  States  complain  of  the  decree  of  Ram- 
bouill^t  ?  Tilt  non-intercourse  act  was  an  act  hostile  to  France,  and  had 
pi-eceded  that  decree,  the  lawfulness  of  which  no  Power  on  earth  had  a 
right  to  dispute.  Judge  then,  for  yourselves,  gentlemen,  of  the  indulgence, 
to  avail  myself  of  an  expression  of  our  colleague,  M.  Bignon,  with  which 
we  have  admitted  these  claims  of  the  United  States. 

Your  committee  have  rejected  these  pretensions,  so  far  as  they  bore,  ge- 
nerally, upon  all  the  considerations  arising  from  the  decrees  of  the  empire ; 
yet  they  conld  not  but  except  such  ships  as  were  captured  prior  to  their 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  these  decrees  ;  the  principles  of  national  and 
universal  law,  and  of  equity,  forbidding  that  a  prohibitory  measure  should 
be  considered  as  taking  effect  before  the  parties  interested  had  come  to  a 
knowledge  of  it. 

Your  committee  are  also  of  opinion  that  indemnification  was  justly  due 
for  ships  seized  since  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  the  date  of  the  repeal 
of  those  decrees.  It  is  an  undoubted  principle,  that  an  act  should  be 
deemed  inoperative  from  the  moment  of  its  repeal. 

Another  question  of  deep  interest  to  your  committee,  was  that  in  rela- 
tion to  vessels  seized  in  Spain,  and  afterwards  sold  at  Bayonne  ;  a  ques- 
tion, the  most  important  details  of  which  they  have  carefully  investi- 
gated. It  is  to  them  a  fact  demonstrated,  that  these  vessels  would  never 
have  entered  the  port  of  St.  Sebastian,  but  for  the  previous  pledge  of  the 
French  authorities  that  they  should  not  be  deemed  as  coming  within  the 
scope  of  the  existing  decrees.  We  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  to  with- 
hold indemnification  for  these  vessels  would  be  to  compromise  the  honor 
of  France.  The  same  is  true  of  vessels  sunk  or  burnt  at  .sea.  The 
right  which  permits  the  commander  of  a  squadron  to  destroy  vessels 
in  time  of  war,  not  for  any  culpable  act  of  theirs,  but  on  the  mere  suppo- 
sition that  they  might,  if  suffered  to  proceed,  make  known  to  the  enemy 
the  secrets  of  his  expedition,  is  acknowledged  to  be  an  extraordinary  right, 
and  a  doubt  has  never  been  raised  that  the  claimants  of  property  so  de- 
stroyed are  entitled  to  reparation. 

Your  committee  are  also  of  opinion  that  indemnification  is  due  the  Unit- 
ed States ;  but  that  it  is  due  only,  1st,  For  vessels  seized  prior  to  a  know- 
ledge, oh  their  part,  of  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan.  2dly.  For  vessels 
seized  since  the  1st  of  November,  1810.  3dly.  For  vessels  confiscated  in 
Spain,  and  sold  at  Bayonne.   4thly.  For  vessels  sunk  or  burnt  by  French 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  459 

squadrons;  all  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the  Duke  of 
Viceriza,  in  1814,  and  with  that  of  the  commission  ajjpointed  in  1831. 

The  principle  of  indemnification  having  been  once  admitted,  and  the 
claims  which  it  «uglit  to  affect  once  specified,  your  committee  had  next  to 
examine  the  reasons  which  led  the  Government  to  increase  the  sum,  and  to 
fix  it  at  25  millions.  We  had  a  visit  from  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affiiirs  : 
the  result  was  our  conviction,  from  documents  furnished  by  him,  tliat  the 
Government  has  always  held,  that  if  indemnity  were  due,  it  was  due  but 
to  these  four  classes  of  claims,  the  justice  of  wiiich,  I  think,  has  been  fully 
proved  ;  and  that  these,  and  these  alone,  have  formed  the  basis  of  its  nc- 
gotiations  with  the  United  States. 

Another  duty  remained  to  be  discharged  by  your  committee,  which  was 
to  furnish  a  statement  of  the  number  and  the  value  of  cargoes  and  vessels, 
for  the  loss  of  which  they  had  decided  that  indemnification  should  be  made. 

The  minister  of  the  United  States  had  presented,  in  1831,  claims  for485 
prizes.  TJie  committee,  after  an  examination  of  all  the  lists  produced  by 
both  Governments,  have  admitted,  as  entitled  to  indemnification,  but  124 
vessels  and  127  cargoes.  This  done,  your  committee  had  only  to  make 
out  an  estimate  of  tlie  value  of  the  cargoes  and  vessels,  and  to  compare  it 
with  the  sum  of  25  millions,  which  the  French  Government  has  engaged 
to  pay  to  the  United  States,  deducting,  however,  that  of  1,500,000  francs 
for  the  indemnification  of  French  citizens,  creditors  of  the  United  States, 
whose  clainjs  are  of  the  same  nature  as  those  of  the  Americans. 

The  result  of  this  estimate  and  comj)arison  was  a  perfect  conviction,  on 
the  part  of  the  committee,  that  the  sum  of  25  millions  is  justly  due  to  the 
United  States.  In  fact,  the  value  of  vessels  confiscated  amounted  to  25 
millions,  omitting  that  of  the  eight  not  sold  at  Bayonne,  but  surrendered 
to  the  Marine  Department,  in  virtue  of  the  imperial  decisions. 

As  respects  the  second  part  of  the  treaty  relative  to  compensation  al- 
lowed for  the  benefits  secui-ed  to  us  by  the  8th  article  of  the  Louisiana 
treaty,  by  estimates  made  from  those  which  have  already  restilted  to  our 
commerce  from  the  free  entry,  so  to  speak,  of  our  wines  and  our  silks  into 
the  United  States,  your  committee  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the 
French  Government  has,  in  signing  this  treaty,  acted  Justly,  wisely,  and 
for  the  interests  of  the  country. 

Permit  me  to  answer  certain  objections  made  by  the  opponents  of  the 
bill  to  the  report  of  your  committee. 

I  would  first  remark  to  my  honorable  colleague,  M.  Boissy  d'Anglas, 
that  he  errs  if  he  thinks  that  the  French  Government  is  the  only  Govern- 
ment from  which  that  of  the  United  States  would  have  demanded  this  in- 
demnification. It  has  exacted  and  received  millions  from  England,  from 
Spain,  from  Sweden,  and  the  Two  Sicilies. 

I  have,  with  every  member  of  this  chamber,  admired  the  consummate 
power  and  address  shown  in  the  speech  made  by  our  honorable  colleague, 
M.  Bignon,  in  the  course  of  this  debate.  Such  is  the  force  of  talent,  that 
he  would  have  infallibly  convinced  even  myself,  had  I  not  profoundly  stu- 
died the  question  now  before  us.  There  were,  however,  two  points  in  this 
speech  with  which  I  was  particularly  struck.  The  first  was,  that,  aftei* 
adopting  the  principles  of  the  committee,  he  was  unwilling  to  admit  the 
conclusions  rationally  resulting  from  them  ;  the  second  was,  that  the  po- 
licy of  the  empire  found  in  him  a  most  eloquent  opponent. 

Our  honorable  colleague  admits  the  principle  that  indemnification  ia  duo 


i60  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

he  United  States,  but  rejects,  with  one  exception,  all  the  grounds  upon 
viiich  it  can  be  justly  predicated  ;  grounds  admitted  hy  the  Duke  of 
^icenza,  and  even  by  tlie  Emperor  himself,  in  1814.  In  other  words,  he 
i  of  opinion  that  something  is  due  the  United  States;  but  he  denies  that 
his  something  should  be  paid  them. 

M.  Bignori  wishes  the  inOcninification  to  extend  only  to  such  vessels  as 
^ere  burnt  at  sea  by  our  squadrons  ;  denying  it  on  account  of  the  vessels 
onfiscatcd  before  the  parties  interested  could  have  had  knowledge  of  the 
ecrees,  of  those  seized  after  the  revocation  of  tliese  decrees,  and  of 
lose  seized  at  St.  Sebastian  and  sold  at  Bayonne ;  and  his  reason  for  so 
oing  is,  that  (he  grounds  on  which  the  allowance  of  indemnification  for 
lese  vessels  is  predicated,  afford  matter  for  doubt  and  discussion. 
I  ask  pardon  of  my  colleague;  the  grounds  admitted  by  the  committee 
annot  afford  matter  for  doubt  and  discussion  ;  because  principles,  which 
re  the  same  at  all  times  and  all  places,  forbid  that  these  grounds  should 
0  rationally  contested.  Do  you  reject  the  principle  that  a  law  can  never 
ave  a  retrospective  effect  ?  the  principle  that  a  decree  revoked  is  an  inope- 
itive  decree  ?  Can  you  silence  the  voice  of  conscience  while  it  tells  you  that 
je  price  of  the  ships — pardon  the  expression — robbed  at  St.  Sebastian, 
ight  to  be  repaid  ? 

The  strongest  objection  made  by  M.  Bignon  to  the  report  of  your  com- 
littee  is  this — you  should  not  have  allowed  indemnification  for  the  twelve 
jssels  condemned  after  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  but  seized  before  tiiat 
ite.  It  is  because  the  note  of  the  5th  of  August,  1810,  had  declared  that 
le  decrees  were  revoked ;  because  the  United  States  were  the  first  to 
ake  advances  to  us,  in  repealing  the  non-intercourse  bill;  because  we  were 
le  cause  of  the  war  which  they  declared  against  Great  Britain  in  1812, 
lat  we  have  less  consulted  the  strict  rule  of  right  with  respect  to  these 
v'elve  vessels,  than  the  dictates  of  equity. 

The  second  part  of  the  treaty  which  we  offer  for  your  ratification,  has 
und  as  little  favor  with  my  colleague,  M.  Bignon.  If  the  United  States 
duce  their  duties  on  our  wines  and  our  silks,  it  is,  forsooth,  an  act  in 
em  of  mere  stratagem  and  address.  They  reduce  their  custom-house 
ities  because  they  no  longer  know  what  to  do  with  their  money  :  mean- 
bile  we  hear  nothing  talked  of  but  American  batikruptcy.  Your  com- 
ittce  are  neither  so  sliarp-sighted  nor  so  far-sighted  as  our  honorable 
lleague.  The  only  question  \\ith  them,  on  this  head,  has  been,  whether 
reduction  of  duties  on  our  wines  and  on  our  silks  is  a  sufficient  compen- 
tion  for  the  loss  of  tlie  benefits  promised  by  the  Louisiana  treaty.  The 
lestion  is  affirmatively  answered  by  the  estimates  themselves,  and  re- 
tires no  further  investigation.  My  lionorab'.e  colleague  thinks  that  the 
mericans  would  make  no  change  in  their  tariff,  even  siiould  you  not 
tify  the  treaty  of  the  4th  of  July.  But,  if  the  Americans  are  as  selfish 
M.  Bignon  considers  them,  will  they  not  be  eager  to  wrest,  by  their 
ities,  from  the  commerce,  what  they  have  not  been  able  to  obtain  from 
e  justice  of  France  ?  What  will  tiien  become  of  Lyons  and  Bordeaux? 
eflect  !  gentlemen ;  there  is  cause  for  reflection.  Thus,  gentlemen,  right 
;d  equity  both  demand  your  assent  to  the  bill  before  you.  In  giving  that 
sent,  you  will  perform  an  act  not  of  justice  only,  but  of  the  wisest  policy, 
is  by  a  reunion  of  the  bonds  which  should  connect  us  witii  America 
at  you  will  oppose  the  encroachments  of  a  Power  which,  not  having  dared 
make  war  upon  you  by  acts  of  violence,  has  endeavored  to  do  so  by  its 


f  Doc.  No.  2.  J  461 

tariffs.  It  is  by  opening  new  outlets  to  tlic  products  of  oui*  soil  and  of  oui 
industry,  by  increasing  for  the  working  classes  the  elements  of  labor,  tha' 
we  may  usefully  serve  the  country.  Spirits  are  at  work  among  us,  whos( 
agitation  threatens  to  explode.  Tliere  is  but  one  way  to  lay  the  storm,  anc 
that  is  to  open  to  Ihem  new  opportunities  of  action  ;  they  are  restless  onl} 
because  they  have  no  place  in  society.  Let  us  colonize  Algiers  ;  and  let  uj 
seriously  consider  the  state  of  Corsica,  which  requires  birt  a  few  millionj 
usefully  expended,  to  become  one  of  the  most  populous  countries  in  Europe. 

M.  BoissY  d'Anglas. 

I  wish  to  oJQfer  a  reply  to  a  statement  made  by  M.  Realier  Dumas. 

Gentlemen,  when  a  deputy  rises  in  this  tribune  to  fulfil  one  of  the  dic- 
tates of  conscience,  that  of  protecting  the  interests  of  the  country,  hr 
should  be  certain  as  regards  the  facts  stated  by  him,  otherwise  he  will 
lead  those  of  his  colleagues  into  error,  who  are  ready  to  place  dependence 
upon  him.  M.  R6alier  Dumas  has  told  you  that  I  had,  no  doubt  thought- 
lessly, affirmed  that  no  other  Powers  had  indemnified  tlie  United  States 
for  tiie  losses  experienced  during  the  continental  blockades,  of  which  the 
imperial  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  were  the  inevitable  results.  I  ask 
you,  gentlemen,  to  allow  me  to  show  you  where  the  charge  of  incorrectness 
will  apply. 

It  may  be  said  that,  immediately  after  the  glorious  revolution  of  July, 
the  agents,  and  the  friends  also,  of  the  Federal  Government,  recommenced 
urging  those  claims  which  had  been  rejected  by  that  of  the  Restoration  ;  the 
new  Government,  with  a  view  to  policy,  passed  an  ordinance  on  the  14th 
October,  18S0,  creating  an  administrative  commission  to  examine  this 
business. 

To  name  the  members  who  formed  a  part  of  this  commission,  is  to  fur- 
jiish  a  guaranty  of  its  impartiality  :  M.  Lain6,  Peer  of  F'rance,  was  its 
president,  and  furnished  its  report;  M.  Bellet,  senior,  M.  Benjamin 
Delessert,  M.  George  Lafayette,  M.  Piciion,  and  M.  d'AudifTret,  were 
the  other  members. 

Upon  the  pretensions  of  the  United  States,  M.  Lain6  made  a  report* 
marked  by  force  and  argument;  in  it  the  different  questions  were  examin- 
ed and  resolved,  agreeably  to  the  jjrinciples  of  public  rights.  After  two 
months  of  the  most  assiduous  labor,  a  sum  was  fixed  upon,  very  inferior 
to  that  which  is  now  demanded  of  you  ;  this  amount  was  determined  with- 
out having  previously  examined  and  considered  the  negotiation  wliich  had 
taken  place  between  the  United  States  and  three  other  Powers,  relative  to 
indemnifications  demanded,  under  circumstances  in  some  degree  similar; 
but  the  commission  was  awai-e  that  the  analogy  was  very  far  from  being 
perfect,  and  that  the  sacrifices  to  which  England,  Spain,  and  Denmark  had 
quietly  submitted,  were  amply  compensated  by  incontestable  advantages. 
Tiie  following,  gentlemen,  are,  moreover,  the  terms  of  the  report  : 

"  A  majority  has  allowed  indemnification  in  three  classes  of  cases,  be- 
lieving that  equity  towards  others  ought  to  prevail  over  the  motives  for 
rejection  given  by  the  Governments  of  the  Empire  and  of  the  Restoration  ; 
it  has  therefore  been  their  object  to  maintain  harmony  between  two  friendly 
Powers,  and  to  establisli  reciprocal  and  beneficial  commercial  relation- 
ships ;  for  which  ends  France  has  already  made  great  sacrifices,  not  hav- 
ing been  influenced  by  the  example  of  England,  of  Spain,  and  of  Denmark. 

♦  Never  published. 


462  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 


i  ''  If,  for  the  captures  made  during  tlie  war  of  1793,  England  has  judged 
'  it  expedient  to  recompense  the  United  States,  it  was  because  she  had  gone 
!  beyond  the  boundaries  of  injustice  itse)f,  in  regard  to  neutral  Americans  ; 
I  because  she  wished  to  detach  her  from  France ;  and  she  had  been  amply 
indemnified  by  the  treaty  made  by  her  with  the  Federal  Government,  at 
'the  end  of  the  year  1794,  as  that  treaty  struck  at  the  grand  compact 
I  of  1788,  between  France  and  the  United  States. 

I  <<  The  convention  of  indemnification  with  Spain  was  combined  with  the 
1  acquisition  of  the  Floridas  j  for  the  accomplishment  of  which  France 
<  afforded  many  facilities  to  the  United  States. 

<<  As  for  the  convention  with  Denmark,  we  may  find  in  the  Department 

of  Foreign  Affairs  the  motives  by  which  this  Power  was  governed  :  it 

I  would  then  be  proved  that  the  sum  allowed  under  the  name  of  indemnifi- 

I  cation  was  given  without  regular  accounts,  and  was  very  far  below  what 

i  was  claimed," 

{  Such,  gentlemen,  are  the  words  of  the  report  itself,  made  by  M.  Laine  : 
5  you  will  understand,  that,  when  I  observed  that  no  indemnification  had 
1  been  given  by  the  different  Powers  to  the  Federal  Government,  I  meant 
i  that  no  indemnification  had  been  allowed  upon  the  grounds  assumed  in  the 
claims  of  the  United  States  against  France;  most  assuredly  I  would  not 
I  assert  that  at  no  time,  and  under  no  circumstances,  had  any  arrangements 
:  been  made ;  but  I  was  perfectly  correct  in  affirming  that,  under  parallel 
i  circumstances,  for  reasons  such  as  are  now  given,  and  simply  as  the  pay- 
1  ment  of  a  debt,  no  pecuniary  sacrifice  has  been  made  by  eHhep  »f  these 
three  Powers. 

I  An  honorable  general  has  told  you  that  it  is  to  oar  own  hant>r  to  pay 
I  that  which  we  owej  yes,  undoubtedly,  gentlemen.  States,  as  well  as  indi- 
viduals, are  bound  to  fulfil  their  engagements,  under  penalty  of  being  dis- 
graced if  they  do  not ;  bwt,  gentlemen,  if  you  are  not  in  tJebt,  as  I  am  per- 
suaded you  are  no^-,  do  not  allow  yourselves  to  be  duped;  otherwise,  in 
place  of  fulfilling  the  demands  of  honor,  we  shall  become  the  laughing 
stock  of  Europe, 

I  Recollect,  gentlemen,  that  extraordinary  expenditures  are  those  which  pro- 
'duce  the  ruin  of  empires;  ordinary  expenditures  are  easily  borne,  because 
i  we  provide  ft>r  them  corresponding  resources ;  from  these  there  can  be  no- 
'  thing  n^ore  than  momentary  uneasiness ;  but  for  extraordinary  expendi- 
1  tures,  credit  must  be  resorted  to,  the  future  must  be  pledged,  and  there  h 
no  power  suiScientJy  strong  to  bear  up  against  the  continued  abuse  of  such 
1  expedients. 

'      Gentlemen,  I  have  quoted  the  rcp^>rt  of  M.  Laine,  but  I  will  now  make 
'  a  new  observation  ;  for  this  purpose  I  shall  call  upoti  the  Minister  of  Fo- 
reign Afitiirs,  and  I  beg  of  him  to  grant  me  a  moment's  attention. 

I  say,  then,  it  is  somewhat  extraordinary  that  the  report  of  M.  Laine, 
'  given  as  the  result  of  the  labors  of  th*  commission,  has  not  been  added  to 
'  the  printed  documents.  In  that  report  it  is  said  that  the  commission  &f 
'  1831  asked  but  twelve  millions  for  the  United  States.  Tliere  is  a  great 
'  difference  between  that  sum  and  twenty-five  millions  demanded  by  the  new 
'  commission.  I  therefore  request  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  have 
the  goodness  to  lay  that  report  upon  the  table  of  the  president,  in  order 
'that  it  may  be  printed  and  distributed. 

The  Duke  de  Broglie,  [Minister  of  Foreign  Jffairs.J 
The  report  has  been  communicated  to  the  committee. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  463 

M.  BoissY  d'Anglas. 

The  minister  tells  me  that  this  report  has  been  given  to  the  committee. 
I  declare  that  I  have  sought  for  it  in  vain ;  and  if  I  have  had  any  knowledge 
of  it,  I  should  say  that  it  was  obtained  in  a  manner  almost  fraudulent,  for 
it  has  been  communicated  to  me  just  as  tjjough  there  were  no  obligation  to 
do  so.  It  is  proper,  however,  that  the  Deputies  should  not  be  thus  com- 
pelled to  obtain  tiieir  information  in  a  clandestine  manner. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

The  report  has  been  communicated  to  the  committee ;  it  is  in  its  pos- 
session. 

M.  BoissY  d'Anglas. 

The  committee  has  not  deposited  it  in  the  committee  room. 

M.  Petou. 

It  is  indispensable  that  the  report  should  be  communicated  to  us  j  until 
that  is  done,  it  will  be  proper  to  put  off  the  vote  on  tiie  law. 

M.  Realier  Dumas. 

I  will  observe  that  the  report  in  question  has  been  communicated  to  the 
committee,  of  which  I  am  a  member. 

M.  Petou. 

That  is  not  sufficient. 

M.  Realier  Dumas. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  commission  of  1831  extended  the  amount  to 
twelve  millions  only  ;  because  that  commission  had  not  before  it  the  docu- 
ments vvitii  which  we  have  been  furnished.  It  is  proj)er  for  me  to  say  that 
all  the  documents  have  been  furnished  tons,  not  only  by  the  United  States 
and  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  but  that  we  have  collected  others 
in  the  archives  of  the  Council  of  State,  of  the  Department  of  Marine, 
and  of  the  administration  of  the  Cr.stoms.  And  I  aver  that  the  committee 
has  performed  this  labor  conscientiously,  and  has  made  its  estimates 
according  to  the  strictest  rules  of  justice. 

M.  BoissY  d'Anglas. 

I  persist  in  demanding  the  report  made  by  M.  Laine. 

M.  Petou. 

Remember  that  Napoleon  determined  to  pay  but  thirteen  millions. 

M.  Auguis. 

Gentlemen  :  I  will  begin  by  submitting  to  the  Chamber  a  short  reply 
to  some  of  the  observations  which  have  just  been  made  by  the  honora- 
ble M.  Realier  Dumas,  member  of  the  committee. 

M.  Realier  Dumas  has  just  affirmed  that  the  committee  was  furnished 
with  all  the  necessary  documents ;  that  they  did  not  restrict  themselves 
to  an  examintion  of  those  which  have  been  supplied  by  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  ;  that  they  have  searched  the  archives  for  some,  and  ap- 
plied to  the  Council  of  State  for  others;  and,  in  fine,  that  they  had  ob- 
tained documents  from  every  possible  source. 

I  apprehend,  gentlemen,  that  our  colleague  is  mistaken.  If,  in  fact, 
he  had  taken  the  pains  to  make  a  more  attentive  examination  in  the  ar- 
chives of  the  Depaitment  of  Foreign  Affairs  ;  if  he  had  asked  for  the 
papers  relative  to  the  claims  made  by  Frenchmen  against  the  United 
States,   in  consequence  of  the  cession  of    Louisiana,  in  virtue   of  the 


464  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

treaty  of  the  3d  of  April,  1803,  he  would  have  found  there  claims  which, 
though  not  mentioned  in  the  report,  nevertheless  are  for  a  very  consi- 
derable sum,  and  have  been  long  since  preferred  ;  he  would  have  seen 
that  the  claim  of  the  heirs  of  Sieur  Renault,  to  which  I  had  the  honor  of 
calling  the  attention  of  the  Chamber  on  the  sitting  of  Friday,  has  also 
been  long  in  suit;  he  would  have  found  there  a  correspondence  of  the 
Duke  of  Richelieu,  at  the  time  Avhen  he  was  Minister  of  Foreign  Atfaiis, 
in  the  course  of  which,  the  Duke,  in  a  despatch  to  our  minister  plenipo- 
tentiary in  the  United  States,  had  required  of  him  some  information  re- 
lative to  this  very  claim. 

If  he  had  taken  the  trouble  to  consult  the  work  of  Brackenridge  on 
the  natural  and  artificial  products  of  Upper  Louisiana,  he  would  have 
found  that  the  sum  to  which  this  claim,  if  allowed,  Avould  entitle  the 
holder,  is  no  less  than  1,525,000  francs  per  annum ;  the  details  respect- 
ing it  may  be  found  in  the  work  just  mentioned  ;  he  would  have  seen 
that  the  claims  of  the  heirs  of  the  celebrated  Law  had  been  also  submit- 
ted to  the  United  States  through  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs;  he 
v/ould  have  seen  that  the  claims  of  Count  Coetlogon  had  also  been  the 
theme  of  subsequent  instructions  ;  that  a  voluminous  .correspondence  had 
been  carried  on  with  M.  Hyde  de  Neuville ;  that  the  United  States  had 
been  several  times  reminded  of  these  claims  ;  that  committees  had  been 
appointed  by  the  Congress,  the  reports  of  which  had  not  pronounced  the 
claims  presented  to  them  invalid  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  far  from 
considering  the  demands  of  those  claimants  to  have  been  silenced  by  the 
treaty  of  the  4th  of  April,  1803,  the  Federal  Government  had  consider- 
ed them  as  subjects  for  re-examination.  There  are  papers  which  may 
be  found  in  the  journals  of  Congress  for  1829,  in  those  for  1827,  and  in 
those  for  1828,  which  make  mention  of  these  same  claims,  and  avow  the 
necessity  of  more  ample  testimony  to  enable  them  to  decide  definitively 
upon  them.  Gentlemen,  I  have  had  the  honor  to  declare  to  you,  for  my- 
self, that  I  am  unable  to  attest  the  correctness  of  the  amount  mentioned 
by  these  claimants ;  but  that,  supposing  the  sums  to  be  susceptible  of 
considerable  reduction,  yet  the  1,500,000  francs  will  be  insufficient  to 
meet  the  claims  now  presented  on  the  part  of  the  heirs  of  Renault,  Law, 
Luxembourg,  and  Coetlogon.  Gentlemen,  the  claims  of  the  United 
States  are  made  up  from  the  amount  of  different  claims  preferred  by  in- 
dividuals on  account  of  partial  losses  sustained  between  1806  to  1811. 
It  is  true  that  you  must  examine  narrowly,  in  order  to  determine  precise- 
ly, the  sum  which  ought  to  be  paid  to  the  LFnited  States,  whatever  may  be 
the  principle  admitted,  as  well  as  that  which  ought  to  be  retained  by  the 
French  Government  to  meet  those  claims  which  may  be  presented  at  a 
future  day.  Gentlemen,  before  examining  the  principle,  and  before  ac- 
knov/ledging,  in  fact,  that  the  French  Government  owes  any  indemnifi- 
cation to  the  Federal  Government  for  the  losses  which  they  may  be  able 
to  prove  subsequently  to  the  new  modifications  of  the  imperial  decrees 
diminishing  the  severity  of  those  of  Milan  and  Berlin,  we  must  learn 
whether  the  advantages  derived  by  the  American  Government  are  not 
more  than  a  compensation  for  the  losses  which  they  have  thus  sustained. 
The  honorable  M.  Bignon  proved  to  us,  on  Friday  last,  by  facts  and  by 
reasonings  which  have  not  as  yet  been  contradicted,  that  not  only  the 
American  Government  had  no  claims  to  prefer  against  France,  but  ra- 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  465 

tlier,  if  either  of  the  two  countries  has  a  right  to  demand  indemnification 
of  the  other,  it  would  probably  be  France,  and  not  the  American  Govern- 
ment. Gentlemen,  when,  in  1814,  arrangements  were  made  between 
France  and  the  different  foreign  Powers,  it  resulted,  from  a  recapitulation 
which  was  placed  before  the  Chamber  of  Peers,  by  M.  Roy,  in  the  ses- 
sion of  1832,  that  France  had  just  claims  to  the  amount  of  235,000,000. 
Examine  well  this  amount ;  235,000,000  due  to  France  by  foreign  Pow- 
ers !  I  have  reason  to  fear,  gentlemen,  that  we  have  too  easily  given  up 
a  debt  so  considerable ;  and,  notwithstanding  this,  we  now  see  foreign 
Powers  addressing  the  Government  of  July,  in  demand  for  sums  which 
are  small  indeed  when  compared  with  those  which  we  have  a  right  to 
demand  from  them. 

Gentlemen,  in  such  a  state  of  things,  would  it  not  be  proper  to  form  a 
new  committee,  which  should  examine  the  claims  of  each,  and  deter- 
mine how  much  is  due  by  each,  so  that  the  difference  may  be  paid  by  the 
party  which  may  appear  in  the  end  to  be  indebted  to  the  other  ? 

I  am  of  opinion  that,  under  such  circumstances,  the  Chamber  would 
act  imprudently,  and  with  a  precipitation  prejudicial  to  our  finances,  if 
at  once,  and  without  a  more  full  examination,  it  should  acknowledge 
France  to  be  indebted  to  the  United  States  to  the  amount  of  25,000,000, 
and  consent  to  the  payment  of  it  without  the  deduction  which  I  have  had 
the  honor  to  suggest  to  you.  Do  not  imagine  that  this  is  a  question  of 
royal  prerogative.  There  is  an  essential  distinction  to  be  observed  be- 
tween the  diplomatic  treaty  made  in  1831,  and  the  financial  arrangements 
of  the  same  treaty.  No  one  is  less  disposed  than  I  am  to  dispute  with 
the  Crown  the  right  of  making  treaties,  that  is,  diplomatic  treaties  ;  trea- 
ties essentially  political.  As  regards  any  financial  arrangements  which 
these  treaties  may  embrace,  you  are  omnipotent ;  your  power  cannot  be 
limited  or  questioned.  Examine  then  at  once,  with  religious  attention, 
with  truly  financial  accuracy,  whether  it  be  not  imprudent  and  rash  to  de- 
termine at  once  upon  this  settlement.  It  has  been  made  for  the  United 
States,  as  I  have  already  had  the  honor  to  observe  to  you  ;  but  I  fear  not 
to  declare  that  it  has  not  been  made  in  accordance  with  our  own  essen- 
tial interests. 

The  amounts  are  considerable  ;  on  the  one  hand,  a  sum,  the  yearly  inte- 
rest of  which  is  1,525,000  francs;  on  the  other,  our  claims,  of  which  one 
alone  amounts  to  two  millions  and  a  half :  there  are  others  not  yet  reduced 
to  figures,  but  which  may  nevertheless  be  considerable.  I  think  it  in 
accordance  with  the  purity  of  the  Government,  and  with  the  dignity  of 
the  nation,  to  examine  these  different  accounts  with  especial  care  ;  other- 
wise, you  will  pronounce  upon  them  lightly,  and  thereby  give  authority 
to  the  other  Powers  who  are  reserving  their  claims,  to  come  afterwards, 
and  demand  indemnification  more  or  less  heavy,  on  the  strength  of  the 
precedent  you  will  have  established  ;  you  will,  I  say,  consecrate  these 
claims,  because,  without  falsifying  this  precedent,  you  could  not  refuse 
to  lend  an  attentive  ear  to  the  claims  which  might  be  made  upon  you. 

I  persist  then,  as  I  had  determined  on  Friday  last,  in  requesting  the 
organization  of  a  new  committee,  which  may  duly  weigh  the  rights  of  each 
party,  so  that,  after  they  have  been  established,  the  Chamber  may  be  called 
upon  to  do  what  is  just. 

M.  Petou. 

Seconded !  Seconded !  We  pay  every  where,  and  nobody  pays  us. 


466  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

Several  members. 

Spain  owes  80  millions.   Holland,  Belgium,  Saxony,  every  one  owes  us. 

The  Duke  de  Broglie,  [Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.] 

Gentlemen:  I  appear  before  you  on  this  occasion  to  defend,  in  the 
name  of  the  Government,  the  law  which  is  proposed  to  you :  I  come  to 
justify  in  your  presence  all  the  clauses,  all  the  conditions  of  a  treaty 
founded  on  strict  right — founded  on  equity  and  reason — founded  on  the 
reciprocal  interests  of  the  two  countries  between  which  it  has  been  con- 
cluded. 

This  treaty  has  not  been  spared  in  the  discussion  which  has  taken  place  ; 
it  has  been  painted  in  the  darkest  colors,  to  the  view  of  our  opponents, 
as  an  act  doubly  onerous  to  France  ;  onerous  in  the  first  place,  as  imposing 
upon  us  a  heavy  burden  ;  and  onerous  in  this  sense,  that  it  sacrifices  evi- 
dent rights  to  delusive  advantages. 

Our  adversaries  have  gone  further.     The  Restoration  has  found  grace « 
in  this  respect,  in  their  eyes.     If  we  are  to  believe  them,  the  Restoration 
had  shown  itself  jealous  of  the  honor  of  France,  and  careful  of  her 
interests  ;  the  Government  of  July,  less  skilful  and  less  firm,  has  accepted 
every  thing. 

If  the  Restoration,  gentlemen,  is  entitled  to  this  glory — if  it  be  true  that 
the  Restoration,  in  this  instance,  has  preserved  us  from  paying  tribute  to 
a  foreign  nation,  certainly  the  fact  is  rare  ;  it  is  the  only  one  of  its  kind, 
and  ought  to  be  inscribed  in  letters  of  gold  in  the  annals  of  the  discarded 
Government ;  that  would  be  compensation  enough. 

But  let  us  not  hasten  to  proclaim  this  miracle  upon  the  strength  of 
assertions  made  by  nameless  persons ;  let  us  first  ascertain  the  truth  of  the 
fact,  and  not  lavish  our  incense  and  our  gratitude  at  random,  for  we  may 
be  only  losing  both. 

I  shall  take  up  the  facts  of  the  case  at  their  origin  ;  it  is  the  only  way  of 
understanding  them  correctly.  I  shall  endeavor  to  present  them  in  their 
natural  order,  and  to  place  them  in  their  true  light.  I  am  under  the  neces- 
sity of  soliciting  from  the  Chamber  a  little  attention,  much  indulgence, 
and,  above  all,  much  patience  ;  for  it  is  not  my  fault  that  these  facts  are 
very  numerous  and  very  complicated. 

During  the  course  of  that  long  maritime  war,  which  dates  from  the 
beginning  of  1793,  and  ended  only  with  the  peace  of  Amiens,  great  differ- 
ences sprung  up  between  the  Executive  Directory  of  the  Republic  and  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.  Infractions  of  pre-existing  treaties, 
and  acts  of  violence,  had  been  committed  on  both  sides  ;  retaliatory  laws 
had  been  passed  in  both  countries  ;  the  convention  of  the  30th  September, 
1800,  put  an  end  to  the  differences ;  the  convention  of  1800  re-established 
the  commercial  and  political  relations  of  the  two  countries  upon  a  footing 
of  the  most  perfect  good  understanding.  This  convention  has  been  rep- 
presented  to  us  as  a  sort  of  coalition — as  a  treaty  of  alliance  between  these 
two  Governments,  in  favor  of  a  maritime  neutrality. 

This  is  going  much  too  far ;  the  object  of  the  convention  of  the  30th 
September  (it  is  only  necessary  to  cast  our  eyes  upon  it  to  be  convinced 
of  this  fact)  was  to  put  an  end  to  this  state  of  semi-hostility  which  existed 
between  the  two  countries,  and  to  regulate  the  reparations  to  be  made  by 
each  for  injury  which  had  been  committed  on  the  other. 

But  it  is  true  that,  of  the  27  articles  of  which  this  convention  is  com- 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  467 

posed,  there  are  many  which  are  devoted  exclusively  to  the  re-establish- 
ment of  those  principles  of  national  law,  in  respect  to  the  navigation 
of  neutrals,  which  France  has  always  proposed,  and  of  which  she  has 
endeavored  to  procure  the  observance  by  all  countries.  You  know^hese 
principles;  they  are  extremely  simple.  We  hold  as  a  general  axiom,  that 
the  sea  is  the  common  domain  of  all  the  nations  whose  shores  it  bathes ; 
that  all  may  traverse  it  with  equal  rights  ;  we  consequently  hold,  that  a 
state  of  war  between  two  or  more  maritime  Powers  does  not  at  all  affect 
the  rights  of  neutrals ;  that  the  belligerent  Powers  have  no  right  to  fetter 
the  commerce  of  neutrals,  which  may  freely  frequent  all  the  ports,  har- 
bors, or  roads  of  all  countries ;  in  fine,  that  the  merchant  vessels  of  neutral 
Powers  retain  in  time  of  war  the  right  of  transporting,  wherever  they 
see  fit,  all  kinds  of  merchandise — even  those  which  come  from  countries 
belonging  to  the  belligerent  Powers. 

We  admit,  it  is  true,  two  or  three  exceptions  to  these  general  rules. 
Thus,  merchant  vessels  of  neutral  Powers  have  a  right  to  frequent  the 
ports,  harbors,  or  roads  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  provided  always  that 
ttfiose  ports  are  not  blockaded  by  naval  forces  in  a  situation  to  dispute  the 
entrance  to  them  ;  in  which  case,  the  neutral  ship,  being  duly  warned, 
ought  to  depart,  or,  if  she  persist,  it  is  then  at  her  own  risk  and  peril. 

Thus,  also,  neutral  vessels  have  a  right  to  transport  wherever  they  may 
see  fit,  all  kinds  of  merchandise ;  they  are  forbidden  nevertheless  to  furnish 
the  belligerent  Powers  with  arms  or  munitions  of  war.  Arms  and  munitions 
designated  by  the  technical  name  of  contraband  of  war,  are  liable  to  be 
seized  if  found  in  neutral  ships  by  the  armed  vessels  of  one  belligerent 
Power,  when  they  are  destined  to  be  funiished  to  the  other. 

In  fine,  to  determine  whether  neutral  vessels  do  or  do  not  carry  ar- 
ticles that  are  contraband  of  war  ;  to  determine  whether  vessels  which 
bear  a  neutral  flag,  actually  belong  to  the  country  whose  colors  they 
wear,  we  admit,  in  time  of  war,  the  right  of  visiting,  provided  that  it  be 
subjected  to  certain  forms  and  certain  precautions.  When,  however,  a 
neutral  vessel  sails  under  the  escort  or  convoy  of  a  ship  of  war  of  her 
own  country,  we  hold  then,  out  of  respect  to  the  Government  which 
takes  her  under  its  guaranty,  that  all  presumption  of  fraud  ceases.  And 
we  no  longer  admit  the  right  of  visiting. 

Such  are,  in  a  few  words,  the  rules  of  the  law  of  nations.  These  rules 
were  for  a  long  time  acknowledged  by  all  Europe.  It  is  not  more 
than  eighty  years  since  a  single  Power,  England,  has  thought  it  might 
depart  from  them  more  or  less. 

>  As  to  the  French  Government,  if  it  has  not  always  put  these  principles 
in  practice,  it  has  always  professed  them,  and,  when  opportunity  has  pre- 
sented itself,  it  has  endeavored  to  introduce  them  into  the  text  of  trea- 
ties. This  is  what  it  did  in  1800,  and  on  twenty  other  occasions  ;  and 
it  does  so  still  at  this  day,  in  the  treaties  with  the  Republics  of  South 
America,  without  pretending  to  enter  into  an  alliance  or  coalition  with 
them. 

The  sense  of  these  treaties  is,  that  the  two  countries  engage  with 
each  other  to  observe  these  rules,  and  nothing  more.  But  it  is  to  be 
remarked,  that  at  the  moment  when  the  French  Government  entered 
into  such  an  engagement  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  it 
was  at  war  with  England,  and  that  England  did  not  observe  the  rules  in 


« 


468  f  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

question  ;  consequently,  the  French  Government  was  not  ignorant  the 
it  placed  itself  in  regard  to  its  enemy  in  a  position  of  relative  inferiorit) 
since  it  imposed  upon  itself  restrictions  in  respect  to  neutrals,  which  it 
enemy  did  not  assume  ;  but  it  thought  then,  and  I  believe  rightly,  tha 
the  maintenance  of  these  tutelary  principles  presented  advantages  t 
France  of  an  elevated  description  ;  permanent  advantages,  which  com 
pensated,  and  more  than  compensated,  for  the  inconvenience  of  showinj 
a  little  more  fairness  than  her  enemy. 

The  peace  of  Amiens  put  an  end  to  the  war  between  France  ai)d  Eng 
land  ;  but  the  peace  of  Amiens,  you  know,  was  only  a  truce  ;  the  wa) 
soon  broke  out  again,  and  broke  out  with  increased   animosity  anc^ve 
energy. 

The  French  Government  not  being  in  a  situation  itself  to  carry  on  it£ 
own  commerce  with  its  own  colonies,  adopted  the  course  of  offering  it  tc 
neutral  Powers.  By  an  order  in  council  of  the  24th  June,  1803,  the 
English  Government  interdicted  it  to  them.  Very  soon  afterwards  i(,  io 
re-established  it,  but  indirectly;  that  is  to  say,  by  subjecting  thy  jr 
neutral  Powers  to  hold  commercial  intercourse  with  the  French  colonies 
only  through  the  medium  of  free  ports,  which  it  took  care  to  establish 
in  the  British  colonies.  This  was  the  object  of  the  two  orders  in  coun- 
cil, of  the  27th  June  and  3d  August,  1805. 

This  was  the  first  check  given  to  the  navigation  of  neutrals ;  others* 
soon  followed.  K 

An  order  in  council,  of  the  19th  January,  1804,  had  declared  the  colo- 
nies of  Guadaloupe  and  Martinique  in  a  state  of  blockade.  Another 
order  in  council,  of  the  9th  August  of  the  same  year,  declared  the  coasts 
of  France,  from  Dieppe  to  Ostend,  in  a  state  of  blockade ;  finally,  two 
other  orders  in  council,  of  the  9th  April  and  15th  May,  1806,  extended 
the  blockade  from  Brest  to  the  mouth  of  the  Elbe. 

Until  then  the  Imperial  Government  had  observed  the  rules  of  the  law 
of  nations ;  it  had  religiously  respected  the  convention  concluded  in  the 
month  of  September,  1800 ;  but  irritated  by  these  orders  in  council, 
which  fell  like  one  thunderbolt  after  another  upon  the  commerce  be- 
tween France  and  the  countries  that  were  neutral,  it  issued  on  the  21st 
of  November,  1806,  a  decree,  known  in  the  history  of  the  law  of  na-. 
tions  under  the  name  of  the  decree  of  Berlin. 

This  decree  declared  the  British  islands  to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade ; 
but  neither  the  Berlin  decree,  nor  the  order  in  council,  created  any  real 
blockade  :  the  blockadfe  was  fictitious,  as  neither  Power  had  a  naval 
force  sufficient  to  make  it  effectual.  With  regard  to  ourselves,  our 
squadrons  then  rarely  ventured  upon  the  ocean  ;  neutrals  were  merely 
warned  not  to  trade  with  the  designated  ports,  and  that  their  vessels,  if 
stopped  at  sea  when  bound  for  one  of  those  ports,  would  be  seized  and 
declared  good  prize. 

The  appearance  of  the  Berlin  decree  raised  two  great  questions  ap- 
plied to  neutrals  in  general ;  it  was  a  violation  of  the  principles  of  the 
law  of  nations,  according  to  the  view  I  have  just  taken  of  them  ;  prin- 
ciples, in  virtue  of  which  we  do  not  recognise  a  fictitious  blockade  :  for, 
according  to  us,  neutrals  should  be  free  to  frequent  all  ports  not  effect- 
ively blockaded.  Applied  to  the  Americans  in  particular,  it  was  an 
infraction  of  the  convention  of  the  30th  September,  1800,  the  12th  ar- 
ticle of  which  is  explicit  upon  the  subject. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  4G9 

The  right  of  reprisal  is  alleged  in  justification  ;  but  does  that  right 

xtend  to  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  third  parties  ?    This  is  an  important 

aestion. 

My  enemy  attacks  me,  and  I  defend  myself ;  nothing  is  plainer.     He 

"svels  a  blow  at  me,  which  I  return  ;  nothing  could  be  more  just.     But 

^ly  enemy,  for  the  purpose  of  indirectly  injuring  me,  despoils  an  innocent 

'larty.    Have  I  a  right,  in  order  to  injure  my  enemy  indirectly,  to  despoil 

"'  n  innocent  party  ?     This  would  be  a  question  easily  answered  in  morals  ; 

it  less  simple  in  politics  ?     I  will  not  take    it  upon  myself  to  say. 

Uhers  have  been  bolder  than  I  am. 

It  is  also  alleged,  by  way  of  justification,  that  the  French  Government 

Signed  the  convention  of  1800,  with  an  understanding  that  the  American 

"  rovernment  should  cause  its  rights  to  be  respected  by  the  English  ;  that 

should  declare  war  against  the  English  if  those  rights  were  disregarded, 

'l^nd  that,  not  having  done  so,  the  French  Government  was  released  from 

s  obligations  under  that  treaty. 

Is  it  indeed  allowable  to  supply,  by  gratuitous  suppositions  and  impli- 
-Isation,  which  nothing  authorizes  or  justifies,  the  absolute  silence  of  a 
"  "eaty,  and   especially  of  a  treaty  concluded  in  time  of  war,  and  in  the 
.ce  of  the  difficulty  itself  ?     I  would  not  dare  answer  affirmatively;  it  is 
serious  affair  to  make  up  by  suppositions  and  implications  for  the  si- 
nce of  a  treaty. 

The  French  Government,  notwithstanding,  at  first  seemed  to  hesitate  ; 
le  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  was  absent ;  the  Count  de  Decres, 
linister  of  Marine,  was  at  that  time  charged  by  the  Emperor  with  the 
jlations  of  France  with  the  foreign  legations.  General  Armstrong,  the 
nvoy  of  the  United  States,  applied  directly  to  him,  and  officially  de- 
landed  his  opinion  in  relation  to  the  Berlin  decree,  and  whether  it 
ould  be  applied  to  American  vessels.  The  Minister  of  Marine  did  not 
esitate  to  reply  officially  that  the  convention  of  the  30th  September 
ould  be  respected,  and  that  the  Berlin  decree  would  not  be  applied  to 
;  this  ofhcial  declaration,  being  transmitted  to  the  United  States,  was 
)mmunicated  by  the  President  to  the  House  of  Representatives  in  a 
essage  of  the  7th  January,  1807. 

Nevertheless, the  acts  were  not  conformable  with  the  words,  and  Ameri- 
m  vessels  were  not  only  seized  in  virtue  of  the  Berlin  decree,  but  seized  a 
ingtime  before  the  news  of  the  existence  of  that  decree  could  have  reached 
e  shipowners ;  for  it  was  indeed  peculiar  in  relation  to  this  decree,  and  to 
1  the  others  of  which  I  am  about  to  speak,  that  they  were  put  into 
cecution  the  day  after  their  date.  General  Armstrong  demanded  ex- 
ami^lons  respecting  these  seizures.  Evasive  answers  Averc  given  him. 
inally,  at  the  expiration  of  a  year,  and  on  the  7th  of  October,  1807,  the 
iiperial  Government  decided  that  the  Berlin  decree  was  applicable  to 
merican  vessels  as  well  as  to  those  of  other  nations. 
After  having  once  entered  upon  this  course,  the  two  Governments  con- 
tiued  in  it.  The  English  Government,  by  three  orders  in  council,  dated  the 
h  January,  26th  June,  and  11th  November,  1807,  declared  in  a  state  of 
ockade,  first,  all  the  ports  of  France  ;  then,  all  the  ports  of  the  allies  of 
ranee  ;  and,  finally,  all  those  ports  which  chanced  at  the  time  to  be 
xupied  by  the  French  armies.  To  be  sure,  it  admitted  certain  oxcep- 
3ns  in  favor  of  neutral  vessels  which  might  be  willing  to  submit  to  some 


470  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

conditions ;  such  as  stopping  in  England,  unloading  their  cargoes 
there,  and  paying  certain  duties.  By  way  of  retaliation,  the  French  Go- 
vernment issued  from  Milan,  on  the  23d  November  and  17th  December, 
1807,  two  decrees,  declaring  that  any  vessel  which  submitted  to  the  con- 
ditions thus  imposed,  should  forfeit  its  national  character,  and  be  deemed 
good  prize. 

Such,  then,  was  the  state  of  things  towards  the  close  of  1807.  On  the 
one  hand  stood  the  French  Government,  at  the  head  of  all  the  maritime 
Powers  of  the  Continent ;  on  the  other  was  England  alone,  but  more 
powerful  upon  the  sea  than  all  the  continental  Powers  together  ;  and  be- 
tween these  two  belligerents  the  United  States  were  placed  as  a  neutral. 

The  English  Government  interdicted  commerce  between  the  United 
States  and  the  States  of  continental  Europe  ;  and  the  French  Government! 
interdicted  commerce  between  the  United  States  and  the  British  islands. 
The  American  Government  adopted  the  only  course  that  it  could,  in  this^ 
almost  desperate  state  of  things ;  it  saw  that  whatever  direction  the  ves- 
sels of  the  Union  might  take,  they  would  encounter  certain  ruin  ;  that,  if  i 
they  escaped  the  English  orders  in  council,  they  fell  under  the  Frencyi 
decrees,  and  vice  versa  ;  and  that,  if  by  good  fortune  they  should  escape 
both,  they  would  have  to  run  a  third  risk ;  for  the  French  squadrons 
had  contracted  a  singular  habit  in  their  few  expeditions;  they  destroyed 
all  the  vessels  they  met  with,  whether  friend  or  foe,  Avhether  they  com- 
plied with,  or  transgressed  the  decrees  ;  they  destroyed  them  for  fear 
that  they  might  apprise  the  English  fleets  of  the  course  they  (themselves) 
had  taken. 

The  American  Government,  seeing  that  their  shipping  could  scarcely 
escape  the  dangers  which  beset  them  on  all  sides,  with  parental  care 
adopted  the  expedient  of  forbidding  their  departure  from  their  own  ports, 
by  the  law  of  the  20th  September,  1807,  which  placed  an  embargo  upon 
all  the  vessels  of  the  Union  in  all  its  ports,  and  did  not  suffer  them  even 
to  proceed  from  one  port  of  the  Union  to  another  without  giving  security. 

This  was  purely  and  simply  accepting  the  conditions  to  which  the  two 
belligerents  had  subjected  her  ;  and  it  was,  besides,  a  municipal  act 
merely,  which  applied  only  to  American  vessels.  It  was  an  inoffensive 
act,  and  one  not  marked  by  hostility  towards  any.  It,  nevertheless, 
appears  to  have  excited,  in  a  great  degree,  the  displeasure  of  the  Imperial 
Government. 

The  latter  replied  by  an  act  of  retaliation.  The  natural  method  of  re- 
taliating was  to  place  an  embargo  upon  French  vessels  in  the  ports. of 
France,  or  at  least  upon  those  bound  for  the  United  States.  ^ 

But  the  embargo  was  not  of  this  sort.  It  was  put  upon  American  ves- 
sels in  the  ports  of  France.  The  decree  laying  this  embargo  cannot  be 
found  in  the  archives  ;  but  we  have  the  decree  dated  the  25th  February, 
1809,  by  which  the  embargo  was  raised. 

The  American  embargo  did  not  succeed.  A  large  number  of  Ameri- 
can vessels  did  leave  the  ports  of  the  Union  ;  those  which  had  not  returned 
to  them,  kept  away  ;  and  the  owners  continued  to  play  the  great  game 
of  neutral  commerce,  very  much  like  the  sons  of  high  femilies,  whom  the 
watchfulness  of  their  parents  cannot  keep  away  from  the  gambling  table. 
\^Laughter.'\ 

The  honorable  deputy  from  Andelys,  (M.  Bignon,)   to  whom  you 


[  Doc.  No.   2.  ]  471 

listened  the  day  before  yesterday,  laid  much  stress  on  what  he  called  the 
immense  profits  of  the  American  ship  owners.  Those  profits  may  be  esti- 
mated as  high  as  you  please  :  but  I  am  a  little  surprised  that  the  honorable 
deputy  should  have  told  you  that,  since  some  have  been  made  rich,  others 
had  no  right  to  complain,  and  that  the  gains  of  some  were  an  adequate 
compensation  for  the  losses  of  others.  Supposing  the  honorable  deputy 
were  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  (which  we  should  very  much  regret ; ) 
and  supposing  he  had  embarked  his  whole  fortune  in  a  vessel  confiscated 
at  Antwerp,  at  Bayonne,  or  in  Holland, pursuant  to  the  imperial  decrees; 
and  that,  upon  his  appearing  to  claim  indemnification  of  us,  we  should  tell 
him — no  doubt  you  are  ruined,  but  there  is  your  neighbor  who  has  made 
a  large  fortune,  you  should  be  contented,  and  ought  not  to  ask  any  thing  of 
us  ;  what  would  the  honorable  deputy  say  ?     [Marks  of  approbation.] 

You  are  now  asked,  gentlemen,  not  to  indemnify  the  American  Govern- 
ment, but  to  place  in  the  hands  of  that  Government  a  sum  for  the  purpose 
of  compensating  those  who  may  have  suffered  by  the  improper  application 
of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.  We  cannot,  therefore,  say  that  the 
profits  of  some  are  a  recompense  for  the  losses  of  others. 

The  American  Government,  notwithstanding,  did  not  deem  the  condi- 
tion of  American  commerce  as  prosperous  as  you  have  represented  it,  and, 
in  proof  of  this,  it  did  all  it  could  to  remedy  the  evil. 

Seeing  that  an  embargo  was  ineffectual,  another  expedient  was  devised  ; 
the  embargo  was  repealed  on  the  1st  of  March,  1809,  and  an  act,  known 
in  the  history  of  the  law  of  nations  as  the  non-intercourse  act,  or  law 
interdicting  commercial  intercourse,  was  substituted  for  it. 

By  this  law  the  commerce  of  the  world  was  again  opened  to  American 
shipping,  but  the  ports  of  France  and  England  were  closed  against  it ;  and 
the  act  went  on  to  say,  that  if,  after  the  10th  of  May,  1809,  any  French 
or  English  vessel  should,  except  in   distress,  enter  a  port  of  the  Union 
such  vessel  should  be  seized  and  condemned. 

This  act  is  the  only  one  on  the  subject,  of  which  the  French  Govern- 
ment can  make  any  just  complaint  against  the  United  States  ;  and,  indeed 
such  complaint  would  not  be  well  founded,  for  the  non-intercourse  act 
does  not  at  all  resemble  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees;  it  did  not  interdict 
neutral  commerce  with  France,  but  it  exerted  a  power  which  belongs  to 
every  Government,  namely,  that  of  closing  its  own  ports,  as  every  man  has 
a  right  to  shut  up  his  own  house.  But  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  con- 
vention of  1800,  which  had  yet  three  months  to  run,  is  at  variance  with 
the  spirit  of  this  law.  I  ought  to  add,  that  the  law  was  never  applied, 
and  that  not  a  single  French  vessel  was  condemned  under  it. 

It  may  well  be  supposed  that  the  embargo  law  having  occasioned  so 
much  irritation  to  the  Imperial  Government,  the  non-intercourse  laiu 
would  occasion  still  more,  but  it  did  not.  During  the  whole  of  the  year 
1809,  and  the  first  month  of  1810,  the  French  Government  does  not  appear 
to  have  regarded  that  law.  In  fact,  during  all  that  time,  an  indirect  trade 
which  was  not  prohibited  either  by  the  French  laws  or  by  those  of  the 
United  States,  was  carried  on  between  France  and  the  American  ship 
owners.  It  originated,  and  was  kept  up,  through  the  medium  of  those 
ports  which  were  in  the  temporary  occupation  of  the  French  armies. 
These  were  chiefly  St.  Sebastian,  Bilboa,  and  other  ports  in  the  vicinity, 
to  which  the  American  vessels  were  attracted,  not  only  by  the  prospect  of 


472  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

gain,  but  by  the  express  invitation  of  General  Thouvenot,  who  commanded 
at  St.  Sebastian. 

This  fact  is  confirmed  by  a  letter  from  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
dated  Vienna,  13th  June,  1809. 

The  Imperial  Government  tolerated  this  commerce  until  the  10th  Feb- 
ruary, 1810,  when  all  of  a  sudden  it  issued  an  order  to  seize  all  vessels 
and  cargoes  which  might  be  found  in  those  ports,  and  to  bring  them  to 
Bayonne.  Six  weeks  afterwards  a  decree  issued  at  Rambouillet,  on  the 
23d  of  March,  1810,  directed  that  all  these  vessels  and  their  cargoes 
should  be  sold,  and  the  proceeds  deposited  as  consignments,  a  la  caisse 
des  depots  et  consignations. 

The  decree  also  provided  that,  by  way  of  retaliation  for  the  non-inter- 
course law,  all  American  vessels  then  in  the  ports  of  France,  or  which 
might  thereafter  enter  them,  or  those  ports  occupied  by  French  troops, 
should  be  seized  and  sold,  and  that  the  proceeds  should  be  deposited  as 
consignments. 

There  are  two  things  to  be  considered  in  relation  to  this  decree:  1st. 
That  a  retroactive  operation  is  announced  in  it,  in  terms  as  plain  and  as 
unambiguous  as  were  ever  used  in  an  official  act.  2d.  That  upon  this 
occasion,  also,  the  Imperial  Government  hesitated  as  to  the  consequences 
of  its  own  decisions  ;  for  it  did  not  say  that  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
the  vessels  seized  should  be  placed  in  the  public  Treasury,  but  that  they 
should  be  deposited  as  consignments. 

Nevertheless,  the  American  Government  did  not  seem  determined  to 
push  things  to  the  last  extremity.  The  non-intercourse  law,  enacted  for 
a  year  on  the  1st  of  March,  1809,  expired  on  the  1st  of  Maich,  1810. 
The  American  Government  did  not  renew  it,  but  it  published  a  procla- 
mation, in  which  it  apprised  the  Governments  of  France  and  England 
that  the  law  would  be  again  put  in  force  on  the  1st  of  March,  1811,  if 
they  did  not  revoke  their  decisions  relative  to  neutrals. 

The  Imperial  Government  met  these  advances ;  and  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  envoy  of  the  United  States,  on 
theSthof  August,  1810,  pledged  himself  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees 
would  be  repealed  so  far  as  concerned  the  United  States,  from  and  after  the 
1st  of  November,  1810.  Yet,  on  the  same  day,  by  a  decree  dated  at 
Trianon,  the  Imperial  Government  directed  that  all  condemned  American 
vessels  should  be  sold,  and  that  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  should  no  longer 
be  deposited  as  consignments,  but  be  placed  in  the  public  Treasury. 
The  same  decree  directed  that  the  proceeds  of  the  vessels  already  sold 
should  be  withdrawn  from  that  place  of  deposite,  and  conveyed  to  the 
public  Treasury ;  that  is  to  say,  on  the  very  day  when  it  was  stipulated  to 
repeal  the  Milan  and  Berlin  decrees,  an  order  was  issued  to  condemn 
those  American  vessels  respecting  which  doubts  had  been  entertained. 

And,  stranger  still,  this  decree  is  based  upon  a  report  in  which  it  is 
stated  that  the  decree  was  designed  as  a  measure  of  retaliation  for  the 
non-intercourse  law ;  and  the  same  report  also  establishes,  on  the  one 
hand,  that  the  non-intercourse  law  was  no  longer  in  existence,  and,  on 
the  other,  that  it  was  never  applied  to  French  vessels. 

The  declaration  of  the  French  Government,  that  from  and  after  the  1st 
of  Nove'  her,  1810,  it  would  revoke,  as  respected  Americans,  the  Berlin 
and  M"  decrees,  produced  in  the  United  States  the  effect  that  was  to 
have         i  expected.    Therefore,  on  the  2d  of  November,  the  President, 

/     • 

/ 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  47o 

by  proclamation,  declared  that  the  non-intercourse  law  was  repealed  for- 
ever, so  far  as  it  related  to  France.-  The  Americans  had  cause  to  expect 
that,  from  and  after  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  the  seizures  and  con- 
demnations would  cease;  but  it  was  not  so;  they  were  continued  in  1810, 
through  the  whole  of  181 1 ,  and  the  three  first  montlis  of  1812  ;  the  envoy 
of  the  United  States  requested  in  vain,  during  that  long  space  of  time, 
that  the  engagement  to  his  Government  should  be  officially  promulgated. 
It  was  not  until  the  10th  of  May,  1812,  that  he  could  obtain  a  communi- 
cation of  the  decree  of  the  28th  April,  1811,  which  converted  the  stipu- 
lation into  an  authentic  act.  I  repeat,  during  eighteen  months,  the 
seizures  and  condemnations  were  persisted  in. 

Nevertheless,  in  1812,  the  relations  being  restored  to  a  footing  of 
friendship  and  good  understanding,  Mr.  Barlow  the  new  minister  of  the 
United  States,  addressed  the  French  Government,  and  entered  upon  two 
distinct  negotiations  with  it. 

The  object  of  one  was  the  renewal  of  the  convention  of  1800,  subject 
to  such  modifications  as  circumstances  might  require.  The  object  of  the 
other  was  to  obtain  indemnification  for  the  proceedings  which  1  have  just 
related. 

He  supported  his  demand  with  such  arguments  as  these :  "  From  the 
date  of  their  promulgation,"  said  he,  "  to  the  31st  June,  1809,  when  the 
convention  of  1800  ceased  to  be  in  force,  the  imperial  decrees  enacted 
with  reference  to  American  vessels  could  not  be  applied  but  in  violation 
of  the  stipulations  of  that  convention ;  from  the  1st  June,  1809,  to  the  1st 
November,  1810,  they  could  not  be  applied  except  in  violation  of  princi- 
ples of  public  law,  which  both  the  Americans  and  the  French  pride 
themselves  upon  respecting  ;  and  from  the  1st  November,  1810,  until  the 
10th  May,  1812,  except  in  violation  of  a  solemn  engagement  entered  into 
with  the  United  States." 

"  Besides,"  added  he,  "  even  if  the  legality  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees  were  admitted,  could  their  application  to  facts  anterior  to  their 
existence  be  justified,  or  at  least  anterior  to  the  time  allowed  for  obtain- 
ing intelligence  of  them? 

"  Could  their  application  to  things  which  did  not  naturally  fall  within 
their  scope  be  justified  ?  Could  they  be  applied  without  trial,  without 
judgment,  without  condemnation  ?"  And  a  great  number  of  cases  were 
adduced  to  which  these  exceptions  were  applicable.  In  the  sequel,  I 
shall  have  the  honor  to  acquaint  the  Chamber  with  the  facts  upon  which 
these  assertions  are  founded. 

Mr.  Barlow  pursued  this  double  negotiation  with  an  activity  which 
cost  him  his  life.  He  followed  the  Emperor  Napoleon  to  Russia;  he 
arrived  at  Wilna,  and  died  during  the  retreat  a  victim  to  the  severity  of 
the  season. 

The  minister  who  has  the  honor  to  address  you  being  then  on  his  way 
from  Vienna  to  head-quarters,  discharged  the  mournful  duty  of  receiv- 
ing the  last  sighs  of  that  unfortunate  man  in  a  hamlet  of  the  Grand  Dutchy 
of  Warsaw. 

At  the  time  of  his  death,  Mr.  Barlow  left  this  double  negotiation  in  a 
very  advanced  state.  We  learn  from  a  report  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  dated  the  Gth  October,  1812,  first,  that  all  the  bases  of  a  new  ar- 
rangement were  determined  on  ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  prin- 
31 


474  [   Doc.  1^0.   2.   J 

ciple  of  indemnification  was  admitted.  It  was  admitted  in  relation  of 
two  classes  of  cases  ;  namely,  of  vessels  destroyed  upon  the  ocean,  and 
of  those  arising  from  the  application  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees 
subsequent  to  their  repeal. 

A  second  report,  dated  the  27th  November,  1812,  adds  a  third  class  of 
cases,  that  of  vessels  seized  before  they  could  have  obtained  knowledge 
of  the  existence  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees. 

In  a  third  report,  dated  the  5th  February,  1813,  the  necessity  and  jus-^ 
tice  of  indemnifying  the  Americans  for  these  three  classes  of  cases  are 
established  with  great  force. 

Finally,  in  a  fourth  report,  dated  the  11th  January,  1814,  a  report 
written  under  the  dictation  of  M.  de  Caulaincourt,  (Duke  of  Vicenza,) 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  these  claims  are  estimated  at  about  eighteen 
millions  of  francs. 

You  have  been  told,  with  respect  to  the  sum  of  eighteen  millions,  that 
it  was  not  an  estimate  based  upon  the  admitted  principles,  but  an  offer 
made  to  the  Americans  to  induce  them  to  take  vigorous  measures  against 
the  English  Government. 

That  assertion  is  in  direct  contradiction  w4th  both  the  letter  and  the 
spirit  of  the  report,  in  which  the  sum  of  eighteen  millions  is  specified  as 
the  probable  result  of  the  estimate  in  pursuance  of  the  classifications  I 
have  just  mentioned. 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  at  the  period  of  the  Restoration.  A  ne- 
gotiation was  begun  ;  the  principle  of  indemnification  was  coiiceded ; 
three  classes  of  cases  were  admitted,  which  were  to  serve  as  the  basis  of 
that  indemnification,  and  its  probable  amount  was  estimated  at  eighteen 
millions. 

I  ask  the  pardon  of  the  Chamber  for  detaining  it  so  long  upon  these 
points. 

[Several  members  here  cried ^  No  !  no  !  on  the  contrary,  go  on.] 

My  first  intention  was  not  to  enlarge  upon  the  proceedings  of  the  Re- 
storation in  relation  to  this  business.  The  Government  of  the  Restoration 
has  fallen  ;  thank  God,  it  has  fallen  to  rise  no  more,  and  no  one  is  better 
disposed  than  I  am  to  respect  the  ashes  of  the  dead ;  nevertheless,  the 
praises  lavished  upon  that  Government  constrain  me  to  enter  into  details. 
I  will  do  so  as  briefly  as  I  can,  and  without  acrimony.  I  will  again  con- 
tent myself  with  stating  facts ;  to  you,  gentlemen,  I  will  leave  the  task  of 
drawing  inferences. 

Louis  XVIil  ascended  the  throne  on  the  2d  of  April,  1814.  The 
first  note  concerning  claims  addressed  to  the  Government  of  that  mon- 
arch by  the  minister  of  the  United  States,  is  dated  the  9th  November, 
1816.  Thus  eighteen  [?]  months  elapsed,  during  which  time  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  abstained  from  renewing  its  application.  For 
this  long  silence  it  assigns  a  motive  which  does  honor  to  its  delicacy. 
As  was  declared,  it  saw  France  crushed  beneath  the  weight  of  the  trea- 
ties of  1815  ;  it  saw  that  the  4th  article  of  one  of  those  treaties  imposed 
upon  France  a  contribution  of  seven  hundred  millions,  and  it  refused  to 
make  common  cause  with  those  who  estimated  their  alliance  and  their 
friendship  at  so  high  a  price. 

The  honorable  member  from  Andelys  (M.  Bignon)  has  given  another 
construction  to  the  conduct  of  the  American  Government,  and  that  con- 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  475 

struction  is  one  so  singular,  that  although  I  listened  attentively  to  the 
orator,  I  am  not  sure  that  I  comprehended  his  meaning.  I  have  beea 
obliged  to  have  recourse  to  the  Moniteur  to  dissipate  my  doubts  in  that 
respect.     [Some  interniptions.] 

According  to  the  honorable  M.  Bignon,  and  in  that  only  he  is  right, 
the  minister  of  the  United  States  would  have  consented,  he  would  even 
have  desired,  in  1812,  to  close  the  business  of  the  American  claims  for 
a  grant  of  eighty  licenses,  that  is,  for  permission  to  eighty  American  ves- 
sels to  enter  French  ports,  laden  with  colonial  produce,  and  to  sell  it  for 
the  exorbitant  price  it  then  bore  under  the  continental  system.  This  is 
very  true,  gentlemen,  and  the  bargain  would  have  been  a  good  one  :  for, 
according  to  all  the  calculations  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  at  that 
time,  those  licenses  would  have  produced  a  sum  of  91,200,000  francs, 
with  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  might  have  liberally 
paid  its  citizens. 

But  the  honorable  deputy  adds,  that  the  Government  of  the  Restora- 
tion went  still  further,  for  it  opened  its  ports  to  American  vessels  of 
whatsoever  character  ;  that  is  to  say,  gentlemen,  because  the  American 
Government  would  have  deemed  itself  indemnified  if  it  could  have  en- 
joyed the  advantages  arising  from  the  continental  system,  by  selling  colo- 
nial produce  at  an  exorbitant  price  ;  it  should  also  consider  itself  indem- 
nified, inasmuch  as,  after  the  continental  system  had  been  destroyed,  and 
colonial  produce  had  fallen  to  its  natural  level,  the  French  Government 
did  not  close  its  ports  to  American  vessels,  while  it  opened  them  to  all 
the  world.  To  state  such  an  argument  is  to  refute  it.  I  will  not  dwell 
upon  it. 

Nevertheless,  it  was  not  long  before  we  received  proof  that  the  mo- 
tives assigned  for  its  silence  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
were  the  true  motives.  Indeed,  at  the  moment  when  the  note  of  the 
9th  November,  1816,  was  addressed  to  the  French  Government,  that 
Government  had  to  contend  with  new  difficulties. 

By  the  19th  article  of  the  treaty  of  the  30th  May,  1814,  it  had  rather 
inconsiderately  stipulated  to  pay  all  the  debts  it  had  contracted  to  indi- 
viduals or  to  public  establishments,  beyond  its  territory,  for  supplies, 
contracts,  or  any  other  obligations  Avhatever. 

Two  conventions,  bearing  date  the  20th  November,  1815,  regulated 
the  method  of  settlement ;  and  I  repeat,  that  at  the  time  the  note  of  the 
American  Government  was  received,  nearly  a  thousand  millions  of  francs 
had  been  allowed. 

It  was  not  without  deep  regret  that  M.  de  Richelieu,  then  Prime  Minis- 
ter, saw  the  demand  of  the  Americans  added  to  the  burden  beneath 
which  France  was  already  sinking.  Still,  as  he  was  a  man  full  of  loyalty 
and  honor,  he  plainly  recognised  the  debt ;  in  an  interview  he  had  with 
the  minister  of  the  United  States,  on  the  20th  January,  1817,  he  confess- 
ed that  indemnification  was  due  to  the  American  merchants ;  in  a  se- 
cond interview,  which  took  place  on  the  12th  of  April,  1817,  he  renew- 
ed this  declaration  ;  but  he  at  the  same  time  requested  that  the  payment 
of  the  debt  might  be  postponed  to  better  times. 

I  do  not  say  that  the  Government  of  the  Restoration  was  wrong  in 
thus  placing  France  in  the  position  of  a  debtor  who  craves  time  from  his 
creditor ;  I  am  convinced  that  upon  that  occasion  every  thing  Avas  done 


476  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

that  could  and  should  have  been  done.  But  I  ought  to  remark,  that 
Brance  was  not  thereby  released  from  its  debt  to  the  United  States;  on 
the  contrary,  that  debt  was  made  a  question  of  honor  and  delicacy,  and 
thus  rendered  still  more  obligatory. 

The  American  Government  suspended  its  operations  for  five  years  ; 
this  unquestionably  proves  the  good  will  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  ;  but  in  the  meanwhile,  whenever  an  opportunity  offered, 
it  did  not  neglect  to  keep  up  the  recollection  of  its  claim.  Thus,  when,  in 
1818,  the  French  Government  had  negotiated  for  the  claims  of  the  sub- 
jects of  foreign  Powers,  and  had  agreed  to  pay  for  them  a  sum  of  three 
hundred  million  eight  hundred  thousand  francs ;  when  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  announced  this  convention  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
lie  declared  that  France  v/as  released  with  regard  to  the  European 
Powers^  and  this  restriction  was  inserted  at  the  official  demand  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States. 

Thus  also  on  the  llth  February,  1819,  the  15th  May,  1820,  and  the 
21st  October,  1820,  that  Government  presented  to  the  French  Govern- 
ment certain  separate  claims  of  its  citizens,  and,  at  the  same  time,  inci- 
dentally adverted  to  the  rights  and  the  claims  of  all  the  others. 

It  was  in  1822,  five  years  subsequently  to  the  period  i  have  just  men- 
tioned, that  France  being  relieved  from  foreign  occupation,  and  the 
French  finances  appearing  to  be  in  a  prosperous  condition,  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  renewed  its  operations,  by  addressing,  on  the 
llth  of  January  of  that  year,  a  note  to  the  Vicomte  de  Montmorency, 
then  Minister  of  Foreign  Allairs.  In  an  interview  which  took  place 
on  the  27th  of  January,  he  formally  acknowledged  the  debt.  A 
few  days  afterwards,  during  a  second  interview,  the  President  of  the 
Council  also  acknowledged  it.  I  pray  the  Chamber  to  pay  particular 
attention  to  these  two  facts ;  it  is  seen  that  not  a  single  doubt  was  raised 
by  the  Government  of  the  Restoration  as  to  the  debt  to  the  United  States. 
Still  the  Vicomte  de  Montmorency  did  not  disguise  from  the  American 
minister  the  great  displeasure  he  felt  because  this  burden  fell  to  the 
share  of  the  ministry,  of  which  he  made  a  part ;  and  the  mind  of  the 
President  of  the  Council,  ^ery  fertile  in  expedients,  suggested  to  him 
more  than  one  device  for  repelling  the  difficulty  from  himself,  so  that  it 
should  fall  upon  the  shoulders  of  his  successors ;  he  did  it  in  this  way. 

At  that  time,  there  existed  between  the  French  Government  and  that 
of  the  United  States  some  serious  differences  concerning  navigation  du- 
ties :  which  differences  were  of  two  sorts.  In  the  first  place,  France 
3iad  in  1814  imposed  duties  upon  the  vessels  of  foreign  nations,  from 
Tvliich  French  vessels  were  exempted.  She  also  imposed  several  extra 
duties  upon  merchandise  imported  in  foreign  vessels,  from  Avhich  the 
same  merchandise  v.as  exempt  when  imported  in  French  vessels. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States,  on  the  contrary,  offered  to  ad- 
mit the  flags  of  all  foreign  nations  upon  tei-ms  of  reciprocity.  The 
offer  was  accepted  by  England,  Prussia,  and  Sweden. 

The  French  Government  having  resisted,  the  Government  of  the 
XFnited  States  imposed  upon  French  vessels  a  discriminating  duty  of 
eighteen  dollars  per  ton  ;  and  the  French  Government,  by  way  of  retali- 
ation, independently  of  the  additional  duty  imposed  upon  all  foreign  flags 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  477 

without  distinction,  added  a  special  dutj  of  ninety  francs  a  ton,  exclusive- 
ly applicable  to  American  vessels. 

In  the  second  place,  France,  on  ceding  Louis'iana  to  the  United  States 
in  1803,  had  stipulated  that  her  ov/n  vessels  should  be  received  in  that 
country  on  the  same  terras  as  American  vessels,  during  the  succeeding 
twelve  years  ;  and  from  the  expiration  of  that  time,  forever,  on  the 
terms  of  the  most  favored  nation.  Now  we  have  just  seen  that  the 
English  flag  had  been  placed  upon  the  same  footing  with  the  American 
in  all  the  ports  of  the  Union.  The  French  Government  claimed,  as  a 
matter  of  right,  the  same  terms  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana.  To  this  the 
Americans  answered,  whether  correctly  or  incorrectly  I  will  not  say, 
that,  by  placing  the  English  flag  on  the  same  footingwith  their  own,  they 
had  not  intended  to  confer  a  favor ;  that  it  was  a  conditional,  not  a  gra- 
tuitous concession,  and  that  the  condition  was  reciprocity — We  olTer  the 
same  to  you,  said  tliey,  upon  the  same  conditions.  If  you  do  not  ac- 
cept the  offer,  you  acknowledge  that  it  is  not  a  favor,  and  that  you  have 
no  right  to  it — A  negotiation  upon  this  subject  was  carried  on  at  Wash- 
ington. 

Messrs.  de  Montmorency  and  de  Villele  took  advantage  of  this,  and  in- 
timated to  the  envoy  of  the  United  States,  that,  although  they  acknow- 
ledged the  debt  to  America,  they  had  no  hope  of  obtaining  from  the 
Chambers  the  appropriation  necessary  for  paying  it,  so  long  as  the  ques- 
tion of  navigation  duties  remained  unsettled.  They  intimated,  besides, 
that,  as  soon  as  these  differences  were  settled,  they  would  discuss  the 
mode  of  payment  either  by  arbitration  or  by  a  direct  bargain. 

On  the  18th  of  June,  the  envoy  of  the  United  States  protested  against 
this  new  postponement ;  but  on  the  24th  of  June,  that  is,  six  days  after- 
wards, a  convention  was  signed  at  Washington,  which  provided  that  those 
duties  should  be  abolished  ;  that  is,  first  reduced  one-fourth  in  the  two 
following  years  ;  then  one-fourth  on  each  succeding  year,  until  they  were 
extinguished,  with  the  exception,  however,  of  a  duty  of  five  francs  per 
ton  for  light  money  and  pilotage. 

The  envoy  of  the  United  States  had  scarcely  received  this  convention, 
when  he  presented  himself  to  the  French  Government,  and  required  the 
performance  of  its  promise.  The  French  Government  replied — We  are 
ready  to  discuss  with  you  the  amount  of  the  indemnification  ;  but  there 
are  claims  of  French  citizens  upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
which  we  will  have  settled  by  the  same  treaty.  The  difficulty  relative 
to  Louisiana  still  exists ;  it  has  not  been  arranged  at  Washington ;  we 
will  include  it  in  the  same  treaty. 

The  American  minister  refused  to  consent  to  this.  He  made  no  diffi- 
culty upon  the  first  point,  but  he  declared  that  he  had  neither  adequate 
powers  nor  instructions  with  regard  to  the  other  ;  and  the  discussion 
remained  in  this  state  for  seven  years,  while  Messrs.  Uamas,  Chateau- 
briand, and  Laferronays  successively  occupied  the  Department  of  Foreign 
Affairs.  The  negotiation  made  no  progress.  It  was  carried  on  first  at 
Paris,  then  at  Washington,  then  again  at  Paris,  without  any  result.  Thus 
the  French  Government  said,  1  am  ready  to  settle  the  amount  of  indem- 
nification, provided  you  consent  to  treat  respecting  the  French  claims,  and 
the  pretensions  advanced  by  us  under  the  8th  article  of  the  Louisiana 
treaty. 


478  f  Doc.  No.   2  .   J^ 

The  American  minisler  replied — We  cannot  connect  the  Louisiana 
question  M'ith  the  del)t  of  which  we  claim  payment  from  you  ;  the  two 
questions  are  entirely  distinct.  In  the  first,  our  right  is  acknowledged  by 
you;  in  the  second,  yovu'  right  is  disputed  by  us.  We  are  unwilling  to  con- 
found all  the  questions  in  one  and  the  same  act;  but  we  do  not  refuse  to 
treat  the  two  questions  separately,  and  to  terminate  them  by  separate  acts. 

In  saying  that  the  French  Government  had  not  denied  that  the 
Americans  were  substantially  right,  I  do  not  desire  it  to  be  understood  that 
it  did  not  from  time  to  time  make  attempts,  and  even  shameful  attempts, 
if  I  may  so  express  myself,  to  get  rid  at  once  of  these  inconvenient  claims ; 
for  instance,  there  was  scarcely  a  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  who  did  not 
begin  by  saying  in  conversation  with  the  minister  of  the  United  States, 
Why  did  jou  not  have  your  claims  settled  at  the  same  time  with  those  of 
the  European  PoAvers? 

The  answer  was  plain.  It  was  at  the  express  request  of  the  French 
'Government  that  the  business  was  postponed  ;  there  would  have  been  a 
want  of  delicacy  in  not  acceding  to  that  request.  Another  odious  argu- 
ment was  advanced,  which  has  also  been  repeated  from  this  tribune  ; 
namely,  that  the  legitimate  Government  was  not  responsible  for  the  acts  of 
the  usurping  Government ;  that  application  should  be  addressed  to  the 
usurper  or  to  his  representative,  but  that  the  legitimate  sovereign  owed 
nothing.  Gentlemen,  it  must  be  said  to  the  honor  of  the  Restoration,  that 
this  argument  was  not  seriously  used.  It  was,  to  be  sure,  put  forward; 
but  the  ministers  who  employed  it  instantaneously  withdrew  it,  and  re- 
turned to  the  true  state  of  the  affair.  I  believe  that  it  was  advanced  but 
once  in  an  official  note. 

It  will  not  escape  you,  gentlemen,  that,  according  to  the  turn  this 
negotiation  had  taken,  its  result  was  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  ;  the  French  Government  declared  its  readiness 
to  treat  respecting  the  indemnity  to  be  granted  to  the  United  States, 
provided  the  Louisiana  questions  were  included  in  the  same  act.  It 
followed,  that  from  the  time  the  American  Government  agreed  to  treat 
simultaneously  on  the  claims  and  the  Louisiana  question,  the  French 
\Government  was  taken  at  its  word,  and  driven  to  the  wall ;  there  was  no 
further  retreat. 

W^ell,  the  American  Government  took  this  course  in  1830.  Mr.  Rives, 
the  minister  of  the  United  States,  came  from  Washington,  furnished  with 
"instructions  authorizing  him  in  the  last  extremity,  when  he  could  no  longer 
avoid  it,  to  give  up  treating  the  two  questions  separately,  and  to  combine 
them  in  one  and  the  same  negotiation.  On  his  arrival,  he  found  the 
ministry  of  the  8th  of  August  formed  ;  he  found  it  rather  anxious  respect- 
ing its  existence — uncertain  whether  it  could  obtain  from  the  Chambers  the 
ordinary  appropriations  ;  and,  consequently,  not  much  disposed  to  ask  them 
for  such  as  were  extraordinary.  At  first,  therefore,  he  was  not  very  cor- 
'  dially  received,  and  had  to  put  up  with  the  long  list  of  evasions  which  I 
have  just  recited,  and  which,  after  being  advanced  upon  this  as  well  as 
upon  many  other  occasions,  were  soon  abandoned.  In  an  interview  he 
had  on  the  1 1  th  of  January,  1 830,  with  the  then  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
[Prince  Polignac,]  that  minister  explicitly  admitted  the  right  of  the  Ame- 
rican Government  relative  to  the  vessels  destroyed  at  sea,  which  he  cha- 
racterized as  acts  of  piracy. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  479 

It  was  the  same  with  respect  to  all  those  vessels  seized,  the  proceeds 
of  the  sale  of  which  had  been  deposited  as  consignments.  In  another 
conversation,  on  the  11th  of  February,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
even  confessed  that  indemnification  was  due  for  supplies,  which  had 
not  been  mentioned  until  then,  during  the  negotiation.  The  admissions 
^vere  such,  that  the  American  minister  framed  from  them  the  basis  of  a 
scheme  of  settlement,  in  which  he  stated  the  admissions,  one  after  another, 
and  which  he  sent  to  the  Department  of  Foreign  Afl'airs.  The  scheme 
was  received,  and  an  answer  to  it  was  promised. 

If  the  American  minister  found  the  French  INIinister  of  Foreign  A ifairs 
tractable  enough  as  to  the  right  of  indemnification,  he  found  him  entirely 
liberal  in  regard  to  the  Louisiana  question.  He  then  determined  to 
make  use  of  the  power  with  which  he  was  clothed. 

Two  negotiations,  one  official,  the  other  confidential,  were  from  that 
instant  set  on  foot  between  the  then  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  the 
minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States. 

In  the  official  negotiation,  the  minister  of  the  United  States  endeavored 
to  take  advantage  of  the  concessions  he  had  obtained,  and  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  tried  to  get  over  those  concessions.  During  this  time  they 
had  recourse  to  a  confidential  negotiation. 

Mr.  Rives  had  offered  not  only  to  settle  the  two  questions  by  one  and 
the  same  treaty,  but  to  dispose  of  the  Louisiana  question  for  the  considera- 
tion of  a  reduction  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  the  duties 
upon  French  wines. 

This  overture  was  favorably  received,  and,  upon  the  application  of  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  it  became  the  object  of  a  confidential  memo- 
randum, which  was  sent  to  him  on  the  20th  of  May. 

In  a  letter  of  the  31st  INlay,  also  confidential,  the  minister  asked  for 
some  explanations  as  to  the  duration  of  the  proposed  reduction  ;  which 
explanations  were  given  on  the  15th  of  June.  He  appeared  satisfied, 
and  promised,  on  his  own  part,  to  submit  a  project  of  a  definitive  settle- 
ment of  the  two  questions. 

Things  were  in  this  state  when  the  revolution  of  July  occurred,  which 
overturned  the  Restoration. 

I  ask  pardon  of  the  Chamber  for  being  obliged  to  enter  into  all  the 
details.  [Several  members  :  Goon!  Goon!]  They  are  indispensable. 
I  beg  the  Chamber  to  let  me  rest  a  few  moments.      [Aflcr some  repose,] 

I  have  sketched,  gentlemen,  the  state  of  the  business  before  you 
at  the  time  of  the  revolution  of  July.  '^I'he  statement  I  have  just  made 
will  enable  you  to  give  its  just  value  to  the  assertion  so  often  made  from 
this  tribune, — that  the  Government  of  the  Restoration  had  freed  France 
from  the  American  claims. 

You  have  seen,  gentlemen,  that  the  Governmant  of  the  Restoration  had 
uniformly  recognised  the  debt  ;  and  that,  when  the  revolution  of  July 
burst  forth,  it  was  upon  the  j)oint  of  doing  that  which  has  been  since  done 
by  the  Government  of  July. 

I  should  say  as  much  of  a  proposition  which  has  not  been  openly  ad- 
vocated from  this  tri])une,  l)ut  which  has  been  so  often  repeated,  tliat  I 
will  take  this  opportunity  to  reply  to  it,  to  wit:  that  the  Government  of 
the  Restoration,  had  it  been  willing  to  treat,  might,  upon  more  than 
one  occasion,  have  obtained  more  advantageous  terms. 


480  [   Doc.   No.  2.   J 

I  aiBrm  that  upon  no  other  occasion  did  the  ministers  of  the  Restora- 
tion, or  any  one  of  them,  discuss  the  amount  of  claims  with  the  minister 
of  the  United  States.  When,  therefore,  it  is  averred  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  would  have  been  satisfied  with  less,  such  an 
assertion  is  purely  gratuitous,  and  not  based  upon  any  ascertained  fact. 

This  being  established,  what  could  the  Government  which  sprung  from 
the  revolution  of  July  do  ?  What  ought  it  to  have  done  ?  Should  it  have 
told  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  as  it  was  advised  to  do  from, 
this  tiibune  two  days  ago — upon  the  whole,  your  prosperity  was  greatly 
increased  :  we  have  indeed  destroyed  and  confiscated  your  vessels,  and 
ruined  a  large  number  of  your  citizens  ;  but,  as  others  have  made  great 
profits,  we  are  equal.  Moreover,  we  had  a  hand  in  driving  you 
into  a  war  with  England  ;  that  war  did  you  honor.  It  is  true  you  have 
seen  your  country  invaded  ;  your  capital  taken  by  assault ;  your  fleets 
burnt ;  but  you  made  a  noble  resistance  ;  you  behaved  like  brave  men ; 
accept  our  compliments,  we  have  nothing  else  to  offer  you. 

I  am  of  opinion,  gentlemen,  that  this  argument  would  not  have  sufficed. 
Ought  v/e,as  the  Government  of  the  Restoration  had  done,  or  rather  had 
timidly  attempted  to  do,  ought  we  to  plead  the  irresponsibility  of  a  new 
Government  for  the  acts  of  the  old  Government?  We  would  have  blush- 
ed to  do  so — such  an  argument  was  unworthy  of  us.  Finally,  ought  we 
to  have  tried  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  Louisiana  question?  The  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  had  itself  offered  to  treat  concerning  this 
question.  It  was  clear,  therefore,  that  we  must  do  one  of  two  things ; 
either  confess  that  we  owed,  but  declare  that  we  would  notpay ;  or  else 
end  by  a  single  treaty  all  the  questions  in  controversy. 

The  first  of  these  two  measures  would  have  disgraced  us.  It  would 
have  been  followed  by  a  rupture  v^ith  the  United  States;  a  rupture  to  the 
consequences  of  which  I  shall  presently  have  occasion  to  advert.  Tha 
second  measure  was  the  only  sensible,  honest,  and  admissible  one,  and 
we  adopted  it. 

Nevertheless,  do  not  believe  that  the  Government  bound  itself  by  this 
transaction  blindly  or  at  haphazard,  without  looking  before  or  behind. 
On  the  contrary,  it  took  Avise  precautions  ;  it  chose,  as  has  been  said  from 
this  tribune,  very  enlightened  men  to  form  a  commission,  men  taken  from 
the  two  Chambers,  of  every  shade  of  opinion  ;  so  that  this  commission  was 
incapable  of  suffering  itself  to  be  led  astray  by  the  spirit  of  party.  All 
the  facts,  all  the  documents  were  spread  before  it.  Every  thing  was 
given  to  it.  All  questions  were  submitted  to  it.  It  unanimously  decided 
that  indemnification  was  due  to  the  American  merchants.  With  regard 
to  all  the  rest,  there  was  not  the  same  unanimity.  The  minority  thought 
the  American  claims  might  be  admitted  in  their  whole  extent,  and  that 
the  application  of  the  imperial  decree  was  at  all  times  irregular,  and  in 
contravention  of  the  law  of  nations.  The  majority,  on  the  contrary,  were 
of  opinion  that  the  imperial  decrees  Avere  justifiable  in  themselves,  and 
that  indemnification  was  due  only  for  their  abuse,  and  for  their  retro- 
spective, irregular  application. 

The  same  diversity  of  opinion  was  manifested  upon  incidental  matters. 
Thus,  it  was  agreed  by  all  that  indemnification  was  due  for  the  ap- 
plication of  the  imperial  decrees  anterior  to  the  jperiod  when  a  knowledge 
of  them  might  have  been  obtained.  * 

But  what  time  was  to  have  elapsed  when  such  knowledge  should  be 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  481 


presumed  to  have  been  obtained  ?  The  minority  asked  for  four  months, 
the  time  fixed  by  our  ordinance  relative  to  maritime  prizes.  The  majority 
decided  upon  eighty  days,  which  had  been  fixed  upon  by  the  non-inter- 
course law. 

There  was  the  same  concurrence  of  opinion  that  the  imperial  de- 
crees could  not  be  lawfully  applied  after  to  their  repeal.  But,  by  con- 
demning vessels  after  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  which  had  been  seized 
before  that  time,  was  such  an  application  made  of  the  decrees  ?  The 
minority  decided  this  question  in  the  aftirmative  ;  the  majority  in  the  ne- 
gative. It  was  the  same  with  the  question,  whether  it  was  lawful  to  con- 
demn upon  mere  decisions  of  the  cabinet,  without  argument  or  adjudi- 
cation. 

Upon  all  these  points,  gentlemen,  the  Government  sided  with  the  ma- 
jority ;  consequently,  with  the  opinion  most  disadvantageous  for  the 
Americans,  and  the  most  advantageous  for  France.  There  were  two 
points  with  respect  to  which  it  could  not  accede  to  the  opinion  of  the 
majority  :  the  first,  because  it  was  contrary  to  the  intention  of  the  majority 
itself;  and  the  other,  because  it  was  based  upon  a  question  of  figures, 
and  such  questions  cannot  be  decided  by  majorities. 

The  first  of  these  points  was  to  determine  how  the  American  vessels 
and  cargoes  were  to  be  valued — whether  at  the  price  of  cost  in  Ameri- 
ca, or  at  the  price  of  sale  in  France.  The  majority  of  the  commission 
conceived  that  they  should  be  valued  at  the  price  of  cost  in  America,  and 
not  at  that  of  sale  in  France  ;  because,  said  they,  colonial  goods  were 
exorbitantly  high  at  that  time,  and  the  estimate  made  on  the  latter  base 
would  be  extravagant. 

On  this  point  we  could  not  adopt  the  opinion  of  the  commission,  and 
for  this  reason,  that  although  colonial  goods  were  really  very  high  at  that 
time,  there  had  been  such  a  glut,  and  so  much  hurry  in  the  sales,  that  the 
ships  and  cargoes  had  been  sold  veiy  low ;  and  if  tbe  opinion  liad  been 
adopted,  it  would  have  led  to  conclusions  very  diftercnt  from  those  at 
which  the  commission  wisbed  to  arrive. 

It  is  sufficient  to  compare  the  American  statements  drawn  up  from  the 
prices  of  purchase  in  America,  with  the  French  statements  drawn  up 
from  the  selling  prices  in  France,  to  be  convinced  that  tbere  would  be  a 
difference  of  twice  the  amount  in  favor  of  the  Americans,  between  the 
price  of  purchase  in  America  and  the  amount  of  sales  elTectcd  in  France. 

Thus,  with  regard  to  the  twenty-two  ships,  valued  in  the  American 
statement  at  8,747,203  francs,  from  the  prices  at  the  places  of  exportation, 
we  find  the  French  statements  drawn  up  from  the  sales  give  a  value  only 
of  4,271,890  francs. 

That  was  a  point  upon  which  the  Government  did  not  agree  with  the 
commission  ;  it  adopted  the  price  of  the  sales  in  France,  instead  of  the 
cost  in  the  United  States. 

The  second  point  upon  which  there  was  a  difierence  arose  from  a  set- 
tlement of  the  indemnification  upon  the  principles  admitted. 

The  commission  determmed  upon  the  sum  of  twelve  millions;  we  ar- 
rived at  a  much  higher  amount.  Every  document  had  been  furnished  to 
that  commission  ;  every  statement  had  been  placed  in  its  possession.  The 
publication  of  the  report  of  that  commission  has  been  eagerly  called  for, 
and  I  no\Y  declare,  on  behalf  of  the  Government,  no  obstacle  has  been 


482  [  Doc.  No.   2.   J 

interposed  ;  we  transmitted  that  report  to  the  committee  of  the  Chamber, 
and  they  have  extracted  from  it  whatever  they  judged  convenient. 

I  will  here  also  remark  to  those  who  demand  the  publication,  that  they 
will  not  find  what  they  seek.  They  will  not  find  there  the  series  of  cal- 
culations, made  in  accordance  with  adopted  principles,  from  which  the 
commission  arrived  at  the  sum  of  twelve  millions.  If  such  a  series  of 
calculations  exist  any  Avhere,  I  know  nothing  of  them.  I  examined  the 
report  at  the  time  I  was  occupied  with  the  affair,  and  J  have  remarked, 
and  you  will  see  when  it  is  printed,  that  the  commission  confine  them- 
selves to  laying  down  general  principles,  giving  only  the  total ;  but  as  for 
the  series  of  calculations  by  which  they  arrived  at  that  sum  total,  it  is 
wanting  in  their  report. 

Will  it  be  found  elsewhere  ?  I  do  not  know.  I  have  inquired  ;  it  could 
not  be  furnished.  It  does  not  exist  at  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
What  followed  ?  We  Avere  compelled  to  go  over  the  whole  labor,  that  is 
to  say,  to  take  up  the  statements  which  had  been  placed  before  the  com- 
mission of  1830,  and  likewise  before  your  committee,  to  dissect  those 
statements,  in  order  to  apply  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  commission 
itself  to  the  various  cases  enumerated ;  a  very  different  result  was  the 
consequence,  as  you  perceive. 

To  what  is  this  difference  attributable?  I  do  not  know  ;  but  I  have 
settled  the  fact,  that  the  error  is  not  on  our  side.  The  statements,  I  re- 
peat, are  the  same  which  were  submitted  to  the  commission  of  1830,  as 
well  as  to  the  present  committee.  The  principles  were  settled  by  the 
commission  of  1830.  The  investigation  Avas  made  with  great  care  upon 
these  principles.  I  transmitted  the  result  of  that  examination  to  your 
committee,  and  I  entreat  it  to  compare  them,  and  see  if  the  calculations 
w^ere  exact,  and,  if  they  found  the  least  difficulty,  to  come  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  Foreign  Affairs  and  reinvestigate  the  matter  with  us.  They  com- 
pared the  condensed  statements  with  the  originals.  Two  of  the  commit- 
tee were  delegated  to  the  department  to  communicate  with  the  person 
charged  with  this  labor.  They  found  it  perfectly  correct ;  and  I  venture 
to  affirm  that  it  will  be  impossible  to  discover  the  least  error.  I  have 
caused  them  four  times  to  be  verified.  The  committee  itself  compared 
them. 

That  point  settled,  and,  moreover,  the  Government  having  adopted  all 
the  principles  of  the  commission  of  1830,  it  endeavored  to  make  them 
available  in  the  negotiation,  Avithout  concealing  the  objections  Avhich  there 
would  be  to  surmount.  A  treaty  resulted,  composed  of  three  series  of 
arrangements.  The  first  six  articles  provide  that  the  French  Govern- 
ment shall  pay  to  the  Ameiican  GoA^ernnient  a  sum  of  25  millions,  which 
shall  be  paid  in  six  annual  instalments,  with  interest  at  four  per  cent.,  the 
American  Government  being  charged  Avith  the  distribution  to  the  respect- 
ive claimants  to  Avhom  it  is  due.  The  American  Government,  on  its 
part,  is  to  pay  to  the  Government  of  France  the  sum  of  1,500,000  francs, 
upon  the  same  terms  and  conditions,  to  be  distributed  by  the  French  Go- 
vernment to  AAhomsoever  it  belongs.  By  the  seA'enth  article,  the  French 
Government  renounces  its  pretensions  founded  on  the  eighth  article  of  the 
treaty  of  cession  of  Louisiana,  and  the  American  Government,  in  requi- 
tal, agree  to  grant,  for  the  space  of  ten  years,  a  reduction  in  the  duty  on 
French  Avines.  I  haAe  not,  at  this  moment,  the  amount  before  me  ;  but 
it  is  particularized  in  the  treaty. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  483 

Thirdly,  the  French  Government  engages  to  establish  the  same  duty 
lipon  long  staple  cottons,  as  upon  short  staple  cottons. 

I  intend  to  discuss  separately  the  three  distinct  points  of  the  treaty.  I 
might,  with  propriety,  dwell  only  upon  the  first,  lor  the  Chamber  is  not 
now  deliberating  upon  the  treaty  :  it  is  deliberating  on  a  law,  the  object  of 
which  is  to  authorize  the  Government  to  execute  the  first  six  articles  of 
the  treaty  ;  strictly  speaking,  then,  these  six  articles  only  are  under  discus- 
sion. But  I  grant  that  a  treaty  is  indivisible  ;  that  all  its  stipulations  are 
connected  and  linked  together,  and  that  one  being  rejected,  the  whole 
fails  to  the  ground  ;  therefore,  it  is  better  to  discuss  the  whole  question  at 
once,  than  to  postpone  the  debate  to  another  period. 

The  claims  of  the  American  Government,  extending  to  the  entiie  ap- 
plication of  the  imperial  decrees  of  Berlin,  Milan,  Rambouillet,  and  Tria- 
non, amounted  to  71,095,961  fr.  12  c.  They  claimed,  at  the  same  time, 
interest  at  5  per  cent,  upon  that  sum,  from  1814,  which  added  52,208,925 
fr.  87  c.  They  claimed,  besides,  5,055,445  fr.  38  c.  for  debts  and  sup- 
plies prior  to  1806.  It  is  thus  that  the  account  of  the  American  Govern- 
ment was  established. 

It  has  been  remarked  from  this  tribune,  that  in  1812  the  Government 
had  lowered  its  pretensions  from  71  millions  to  40  millions,  and  eA'en  to 
30  millions.  I  do  not  know  whence  the  oratoi'  who  made  this  statement 
has  obtained  it.  I  have  no  knowledge  that  the  sum  of  the  indemnification 
"was  so  discussed  in  1812,  between  the  minister  of  the  United  States  and 
the  Department  of  Foreign  Relations,  nor  that  the  American  Government 
produced,  at  that  period,  a  statement  of  its  claims.  I  only  know  that,  in 
many  of  the  reports  presented  to  the  Emperor  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Relations  himself,  he  valued  the  American  claims  one  while  at  30,  then 
at  40,  and  even  at  50  millions.  In  that  he  only  expressed  his  own  opi- 
nion ;  but  I  have  not  found  any  traces  of  discussion  on  the  subject,  or 
that  the  minister  of  the  United  States  ever  consented  to  reductions. 

Such,  then,  was  the  state  of  the  American  demands.  The  first  effort 
of  the  negotiation  was  to  induce  the  American  negotiator  to  relinquish 
the  claim  of  interest,  and  the  accessory  demand  of  5  millions  for  ancient 
debts  and  supplies.  It  was  not  without  trouble  that  we  obtained  this  con- 
cession. 

The  question  was  at  length  definitely  reduced  to  the  capital.  The 
French  negotiator  declared  himself  totally  unauthorized  to  admit  the  il- 
legitimacy of  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  inasmuch  as  they  were  re- 
gularly applied,  and  useful  at  the  time  ;  tiiat  he  would  only  be  able  to 
allow  indemnification  for  the  irregular  application  of  those  decrees  ;  that 
is  to  say,  in  those  cases  where  they  were  applied,  before  the  knowledge 
of  their  existence  was  duly  communicated  and  understood,  and  where 
they  were  made  to  apply  posterior  to  their  repeal,  and  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  ships  upon  the  high  seas. 

The  two  negotiators  could  not  agree  upon  those  principles ;  but  they 
agreed  that  a  general  offer  should  be  made,  without  regard  to  principles. 

The  French  negotiator  began  by  offering  15  millions.  That  offer  was 
peremptorily  refused,  and  the  negotiation  appeared  to  be  broken  off. 

It  was  upon  the  express  demand,  and  after  the  strictest  investigation  of 
M.  Casimir  Perrier,  then  President  of  the  Council,  whose  position  as 
Prime  Minister,  and  at  the  same  time  occupying  an  elevated  rank  in  the 


484  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

commerce  of  Fiance,  rendered  him  a  good  judge  of  the  question  ;  it  was 
at  his  solicitation  that  the  Council  of  Ministers  decided  that  a  higher  offer 
should  be  made. 

The  negotiation  was  then  resumed ;  it  Avas  pursued  with  much  dili- 
gence through  all  difficulties.  In  fine,  from  reciprocal  concessions,  from 
offer  to  offer,  from  one  reduction  to  another,  the  sum  of  25  millions  was 
adopted. 

In  fixing  upon  this  sum,  did  the  French  negotiator  compromise  his  re- 
sponsibility ?  Did  he  exceed  the  limits  which  were  found  settled  by  prin- 
ciples which  he  himself  had  laid  down  ?  No  !  He  was  not  the  first,  for  they 
had  been  already  more  highly  estimated  by  the  Emperor  himself,  who 
will  not  be  accused  of  making  bad  bargains  relative  to  his  own  acts,  and 
the  interests  of  his  treasury ;  and  the  estimates  of  the  ministers  of  the 
Restoration,  and  of  every  commission  down  to  1830,  were  higher. 

Before  I  proceed,  I  will  say,  had  that  been  the  case — and  I  request  the 
Chamber  to  consider  it  as  stated  hypothetically — 1  will  repeat,  had  the 
French  negotiator  even  exceeded  the  principle  which  he  had  laid  down, 
still  he  would  not  be  censurable,  for  every  transaction  of  this  kind  is  ef-  / 
fected  by  compromise,  and  the  mutual  abandonment,  in  a  certain  degree,  ' 
of  the  positions  first  assumed.  Each  party  takes  his  own  ground  ;  each 
makes  concessions  to  the  adverse  party ;  and  every  convention  is  essen- 
tially a  mean  between  the  two. 

But  there  is  no  need  here  of  recurring  to  general  principles  in  conven- 
tions. It  is  easy  to  demonstrate,  with  statements  in  hand,  that,  in  applying 
the  principles  settled  by  the  Emperor  Napoleon  and  by  every  commission 
down  to,  and  including  that  of  1830,  to  the  facts  known  to  us,  the  sum 
would  far  exceed  25  millions;  and  this  I  will  endeavor  to  prove  to  the 
Chamber. 

I  am  obliged  to  repeat  to  you,  that  the  facts  which  I  shall  place  before 
you  consist  of  correct  extracts  from  statements  furnished  by  the  Marine 
Department,  of  vessels  burnt ;  by  the  administration  of  the  Customs,  of 
vessels  sold  ;  by  the  Council  of  Prizes,  of  vessels  condemned  ;  and  from 
the  archives  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  of  vessels  condemned  by  the  simple 
decision  of  the  Cabinet.  The  selection  of  these  statements  was  made 
with  the  greatest  care,  and  they  were  transmitted  to  your  committee.  The 
committee  appointed  two  of  its  members  to  examine  them,  and  that  com- 
mittee, entertaining  doubts  on  certain  points,  came  to  the  Department 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  had  those  doubts  removed  ;  consequently,  I 
advance  nothing  which  is  not  the  result  of  the  most  scrupulous  investi- 
gation. [} 

The  first  class  of  acts  which  are  used  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  indemnifi- 
cation, is  the  class  of  vessels  burnt  upon  the  high  seas.  Not  a  single 
orator  whom  you  have  heard,  refuses  to  admit  this  class.  Every  one 
agrees  that  when  the  property  of  a  third  party  is  destroyed  for  personal 
interests,  indemnification  should  be  made. 

How  were  we  "to  learn  the  number  of  ships  destroyed  at  sea  ?  It  was 
necessary  to  consult  the  correspondence  of  the  Marine. 

There  were  no  legal  statements  {procis  vcrbaiix)  drawn  up  by  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  custom-houses,  because  there  were  no  custom-houses  at 
sea.  It  therefore  became  necessary  to  examine  the  journals  of  the  differ- 
ent squadrons,  and  the  correspondence  of  the  Minister  of  Marine,  with  the 


[  Doc.   No.   2.   ]  485 

commanders  of  squadrons.  That  minister  has  furnished  a  statement,  con- 
taining a  list  of  25  vessels. 

In  comparing  this  statement  with  the  statement  of  claims  brought  for- 
ward by  the  American  owners,  a  dilferencc  of  19  ships  is  discovered. 
These  claims  were  communicated  to  the  Marine  Department.  New  re- 
searches were  made  among  their  correspondence,  and  it  is  admitted  that 
the  claims  for  13  of  the  19  vessels  were  well  founded.  Six  were  struck 
off.  On  the  other  side,  it  was  observed  that  of  the  25  vessels  given  in  the 
first  statement,  there  were  seven  which  the  commanders  of  squadrons  re- 
ported would  have  been  seized  as  contravening  the  imperial  decrees. 
Proceedings  were  commenced  ;  but  it  does  not  appear  that  they  were 
prosecuted  to  a  termination. 

In  fact,  from  a  suspicion  only,  we  have  stricken  those  vessels  from  our 
calculations.  Eighteen  then  remained  from  the  first  statement,  that  is  to 
say,  25  less  7  ;  and  thirteen  from  the  second,  that  is  to  say,  19  less  6. 

There  were,  in  the  whole,  31  vessels,  which  it  is  certain  were  burnt  or 
sunk,  w  ithout  any  other  motive  than  to  conceal  the  movements  of  our 
squadrons.     Such  is  the  basis  of  that  part  of  our  operations. 

What  was  the  value  of  those  vessels  ?  As  no  legal  statement  of  their 
value  was  drawai  up,  we  were  compelled  to  seek  it  by  approximation.  Four 
of  those  vessels  had  been  valued  by  an  Imperial  Commission,  sitting  at 
Rochefort.  The  average  of  these  four  ships  gave  as  the  value  of  the  ships 
destroyed  at  sea,  1 56,735  fr.  9  centimes.  This  average  applied  to  31  ships, 
produced  the  sum  of  4,858,787  fr.  19  centimes.  It  is  a  fact  that  the  commis- 
sion were  about  to  reject  five  of  these  vessels,  solely  l)ecause  the  date  of 
their  destruction  was  not  precisely  fixed.  I  will  here  remark,  that  the  date 
in  this  case  was  of  no  importance.  The  date  of  facts  is  important,  relative 
to  the  application  of  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan,  because  the  question 
arises  whether  they  were  applied  at  a  proper  period  ;  but  with  respect  to 
ships  burnt  at  sea,  it  matters  little  whether  it  was  two  or  three  months 
sooner  or  later,  provided  that  it  happened  during  the  course  of  the  mari- 
time war  with  England.  Consequently,  I  could  not  admit  the  reduction 
which  your  committee  introduced.  As  we  are  yet  too  high,  I  only  ask 
permission  to  make  the  retrenchment  at  the  end  of  the  account. 

The  second  class  is  composed  of  vessels  seized  and  confiscated  within 
the  80  days  allowed  for  the  promulgation  of  the  imperial  decrees.  The 
term  of  80  days,  fixed  by  the  commission  of  1830,  has  been  considered  as 
the  least  term  in  which  the  knowledge  of  those  decrees  could  be  communi- 
cated to  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The  statements  furnished  on  this 
'  subject  are  extracted  from  the  archives  of  the  Council  of  Prizes,  contain- 
ing all  the  vessels  which  were  regularly  condemned ;  and  extracts  from 
the  archives  X)f  the  Secretary  of  State,  comprising  a  greater  number  of 
vessels,  confiscated  without  any  form  or  process,  in  virtue  of  a  simple  de- 
cision of  the  Cabinet. 

This  statement  shows  42  vessels  seized  in  the  80  days,  one  of  which  had 
lost  her  national  character,  having  been  captured  hy  an  English  brig. 
Another  was  released.  Forty  remained  ;  of  those  40,  four  were  in  ballast, 
and  of  a  fifth  half  the  cargo  only  was  confiscated.  There  were  then  40 
ships  and  36  cargoes,  and  a  fraction  of  a  cargo,  which  I  neglect. 

So  much  for  the  second  class. 


486  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

The  third  class  consisted  of  vessels  seized  at  St.  Sebastian,  Bilboa, 
and  at  Port  Passage,  and  were  condemned  by  the  retroactive  decree  of 
Rambouillet. 

I  have  had  the  honor  to  show  to  the  Chamber  already  that  the  decree 
of  Rambouillet  interdicted  the  entrance  of  American  vessels  in  the  ports 
of  France  for  the  future,  and  pronounced  the  condemnation  of  those 
which  had  already  entered,  not  only  without  any  opposition  from  the 
French  Government,  but  upon  an  express  invitation  of  the  French  autho- 
rities. It  has  always  been  admitted  that  indemnification  should  be  made 
for  those  seizures. 

The  statements  with  respect  to  these  were  furnished  by  the  Adminis- 
tration of  the  customs  which  presided  at  the  sales.  The  statement  of  the 
administration  of  the  customs  comprises  twenty-eight  ships  and  thirty- 
five  cargoes.  There  is  a  difference  between  the  ships  and  cargoes,  be- 
cause the  whole  of  the  ships  were  not  sold  :  the  best  were  selected,  and 
turned  over  to  the  Marine  Department,  which  transformed  them  into 
national  vessels.  We  omit  these  seven  ships,  although  placed  in  the  sepvice 
of  France,  so  that  we  count  only  tAventy-eight  ships  and  thirty-five  cargoes. 

The  fourth  class  comprises  condemnations  subsequent  to  the  1st  No- 
vember, 1810,  that  is  to  say,  posterior  to  the  repeal  of  the  decrees  of 
Berlin  and  Milan.  These  cases  have  never  been  contested.  It  is  im- 
possible not  to  acknowledge  that  indemnification  is  due  for  confiscation 
made  in  virtue  of  decrees  which  no  longer  existed. 

With  respect  to  these,  there  has  been  a  difference  of  opinion  between 
the  Government  and  your  committee.  The  disagreement  is  as  follows: 
Upon  a  first  list  were  placed  the  ships  which  had  been  seized  and  con- 
fiscated since  the  1st  of  November,  1810.  There  is  no  difficulty  on  this 
point,  but  there  were  ships  seized  anterior  to  the  1st  November,  1810, 
and  condemned  posterior  to  that  date. 

The  commission  of  1830  had  been  of  opinion  to  reject  the  last;  to  de- 
termine from  the  date  of  seizure,  and  not  from  the  date  of  confiscation. 
We  thought  this  method  of  proceeding  extremely  rigorous,  and  that  at 
least  it  should  be  from  the  23d  April,  1811  ;  that  is  to  say,  from  the 
period  when  the  French  Government  declared  itself  fully  satisfied  with 
its  relations  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States ;  from  the 
time  Avhen  the  Government  of  the  United  States  were  placed  in  a  state 
of  semi-hostility  to  England  upon  the  demand  of  the  French  Govern- 
ment. There  was  no  longer  sufficient  reason  to  continue  a  system  of  re- 
prisals, when  the  motive  no  longer  existed  in  the  resolutions  of  the 
American  Government,  and  which  never  had,  in  their  actions,  for  there 
had  not  been  a  single  French  vessel  confiscated  in  America. 

We  had  then  presented,  as  a  subdivision  of  the  second  class,  the  ships 
seized  anterior  to  the  1st  November,  1810,  but  condemned  posterior  to 
the  28th  April,  1811.  Your  committee  have  rejected  those  ships,  and  I 
have  heard,  not  without  surprise,  orators  from  this  tribune  reproaching 
it  for  having  admitted  them.  Without  doubt  they  had  not  read  the  report 
with  sufficient  attention.  Although  we  considered  it  just,  yet  I  do  not 
insist  upon  the  subdivision  ;  I  only  wish  to  make  the  retrenchment  in 
the  sum  total. 

The  amount  of  the  whole  we  find  to  be  ninety-three  ships  and  ninety- 
six  cargoes.     In  order  to  value  these  ninety-three  ships  and  ninety-six 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  487 

cargoes,  we  have  adopted  the  mean  of  the  sales  which  were  made  at  Ba- 
yonne  of  the  thirty-five  cargoes  and  twenty  ships.  This  was  the  only 
ground  afforded  us  for  estimating  the  value  of  the  ninety-three  ships  and 
ninety-six  cargoes.  The  average  of  the  sales  made  at  Bayonne  gives  the 
sum  of  221,482  fr.  20  c.  as  the  price  of  a  ship  and  cargo,  which,  multi- 
plied by  the  number  of  ships,  amounts  to  21,223,021  fr.  25  c. ;  add  for  the 
ships  destroyed  at  sea  4,858,787  fr.  19  c,  giving  for  the  total  amount  of 
the  four  classes,  26,081,819  fr.  2  c. 

In  striking  off  the  twelve  ships  spoken  of  above,  and  the  five  destroy- 
ed at  sea,  there  will  be  a  deduction  of  3,225,140  fr.  45  c;  we  then  ob- 
tain a  sum  total  of  22,856,688  fr.  57  c.  I  declare  my  belief  that  this 
amount  cannot  be  attacked  with  a  shadow  of  reason.  Is  this  all,  gentle- 
men ?  Certainly  not,  and  I  admit  it  must  be  my  fault  that  I  did  not  ex- 
plain myself  with  sutficient  clearness  before  the  committee  so  as  to  give 
them  all  my  ideas. 

I  had  pointed  out  three  orders  of  facts  entering  among  the  classes 
formed  by  the  commissioners  of  1830,  and  which  have  not  been  mention- 
ed in  the  report  of  your  committee.  Those  three  orders  of  facts  are, 
first,  of  the  ships  seized  at  Antwerp  in  1807  ;  secondly,  of  the  ships  seized 
in  Holland  in  1809;  and,  thirdly,  of  the  custom-house  duties  paid  on  the 
seized  ships. 

I  ask  permission  of  the  Chamber  to  explain  these  facts  in  the  first 
place,  and  then  to  express  my  opinion. 

Seven  vessels  entered  at  Antwerp  in  the  first  months  of  1807;  the  de- 
cree of  Berlin  was  then  in  force  ;  the  decree  of  Milan  had  not  been 
promulgated,  it  was  dated  the  17th  December  of  the  same  year.  These 
ships  had  touched  in  England;  that  was  their  crime.  According  to  the 
terms  of  the  decree  of  Berlin,  they  were  liable  to  expulsion,  but  not  to 
confiscation;  nevertheless,  they  were^seized  ;  subsequently,  their  declara- 
tions having  been  found  to  be  true,  the  consignees  were  permitted  to 
send  away  the  vessels,  but  the  cargoes  were  detained  under  the  pretext 
that  they  might  be  English  property,  and  that  an  investigation  was  to  be 
made.  To  save  the  cargoes  from  destruction,  they  were  sold,  and  the  pro- 
ceeds deposited  in  the  public  office  appropriated  to  that  object.  A  trial 
took  place,  and  it  was  established  upon  that  trial  that  the  cargoes  belonged 
to  Americans,  and  were  not  English  property. 

The  consignees  claimed  the  value  of  these  cargoes.  They  were  not 
told  that  they  did  not  belong  to  them,  but  they  were  put  off  with  evasive 
answers.  For  two  years  the  proceeds  were  locked  up  in  the  pul)lic 
chest;  then  came  the  decree  of  Trianon,  which  directed  that  all  the  pro- 
ceeds of  American  property,  so  deposited,  should  be  paid  into  the  public 
Treasury,  in  retaliation  for  the  non-intercourse  law ;  that  is  to  say,  that  the 
proceeds  of  the  cargoes  should  be  subjected  to  the  ex  post  facto  decree 
of  Trianon,  and  that  they  were  condemned  in  retaliation  for  an  act  of 
the  American  Government,  passed  two  years  afterwards.  These  cases 
are  included  in  that  class  in  which  the  imperial  decrees  have  been  con- 
sidered retroactive.  The  custom-house  informs  us  that  the  price  of  the 
cargoes  amounted  to  3,360,392  fr.  20  c. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  case  of  the  ships  seized  in 'Holland,  which  is 
not  less  strange.  These  ships  arrived  in  the  ports  of  Holland  in  the  be- 
ginning of  1810;  they  came  direct  from  the  United   States,  had  not 


488  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

touched  in  England,  had  encountered  no  English  cruisers.  The  decrees 
of  Berlin  and  Milan  could  not  be  applied  to  them :  nor  were  they  ap- 
plied. The  ships  were  left  at  the  disposition  of  the  consignees,  the 
cargoes  were  landed  in  Holland,  and  stored  till  the  payment  of  duties. 

The  treaty  of  the  15th  March,  1810,  was  then  concluded,  by  which 
the  French  Government  stipulated  to  restore  all  the  American  property 
in  the  hands  of  the  Government  in  Holland.  These  cargoes  never  were 
restored  ;  they  were  sold,  and  the  proceeds  placed  in  deposite.  After- 
wards caine  the  decree  of  Trianon  ;  by  virtue  of  it,  these  cargoes  were 
condemned,  against  which  there  had  not  been  the  slightest  accusation. 

The  price  of  these  cargoes  amounted  to  the  sum  of  1,550,576  fr.  41  c. 
which,  added  to  the  sums  already  enumerated,  gives  a  total  of  27,767,639  fr. 
18  centimes. 

There  remains  another  consideration,  viz.  the  duties  which  were  paid 
upon  the  confiscated  cargoes ;  and  it  appears  to  me  difficult  to  oppose 
any  argument  to  the  restitution  of  those  duties.  A  custom-house  duty  is 
a  deduction  from  the  profit  of  the  merchant  who  introduces  merchandise. 
Therefore,  there  are  no  duties  to  be  levied  upon  confiscated  cargoes  ;  and 
nevertheless  it  is  what  happened  to  the  vessels  seized  at  Bayonne  ;  re- 
ceived as  friends,  treated  as  such  during  a  whole  year,  they  had  paid  the 
duties  ;  after  these  duties  were  paid,  the  cargoes  were  confiscated.  We 
now  return  them  not  their  full  value,  but  the  half  or  the  third  of  the  ori- 
ginal cost  at  the  port  of  departure.  It  would  have  been  difficult  in  a  ne- 
gotiation to  pass  over  such  acts. 

The  duties  paid  for  the  ships  confiscated  at  Bayonne  and  Antwerp 
amount,  for  the  first,  to  8,223,935  francs  57  centimes,  and  for  the  second, 
to  5,875,668  francs  18  centimes,  which,  added  to  the  other  calculations 
which  I  have  submitted  already,  make  an  aggregate  of  41,756,292  francs 
22  centimes. 

Such  is  the  result  of  the  bases  established  by  Napoleon,  by  all  the 
ministers  of  the  Restoration,  and  by  the  commission  of  1830.  Upon  these 
data  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Aflfairs  had  to  negotiate.  I  add,  that  if  any 
one  believes  these  valuations  to  have  been  exaggerated,  he  is  grossly  de- 
ceived. Do  you  know,  gentlemen,  at  what  price  each  ship  is  valued  .'' 
At  13,000  francs.  I  ask  whether  a  vessel  for  a  fishing  or  a  coasting 
voyage  would  not  be  valued  at  a  higher  price  than  that.  With  respect 
to  the  valuation  of  cargoes,  an  attentive  observation  is  only  necessary  to 
compare  the  duties  paid  by  the  ships  seized  at  Bayonne,  with  the  esti- 
mate of  their  cargo.  The  duties  amounted  to  eight  millions,  and  the 
cargoes  to  7,293,260  francs,  that  is  to  say,  the  cargoes  were  not  sold  for  a 
price  equal  to  the  duties  paid.  It  was  by  these  facts  that  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs  of  France  was  governed. 

I  say,  then,  that  if  the  American  minister  had  been  possessed  of  the 
principles  settled  by  the  French  Government,  not  by  the  Government  of 
July  only,  but  by  every  Government  which  had  ruled  in  France  for  fifteen 
years — settled  by  the  commission  of  1830  itself;  if  he  had  abandoned  all 
the  claims  which  those  principles  excluded  ;  if  he  had  adopted  entirely 
the  system  of  the  minister  with  whom  he  treated,  and  only  required  the 
liquidation  to  be  made  on  the  basis  settled  by  the  Government  itself,  we 
should  have  arrived  at  a  result  of  not  less  than  forty  millions. 

And  it  is  because  the  French  negotiator  had  the  wisdom  and  address, 


[  Doc.  No.   2.  J  489 

(not  speaking  of  myself,  I  can  say  the  wisdom  and  address)  to  shift  the 
question,  to  disengage  himself  from  the  precedents  which  had  been  im- 
posed on  him,  and  to  make  this  question  an  amicable  one,  one  of  good 
iaith,  of  reason,  and  of  good  sense  ;  tp  take  into  consideration  the  general 
circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed  after  a  lapse  of  time  ;  to  make,  in 
good  faith,  the  best  of  a.  bad  bargain,  by  which  a  debt  has  been  reduced  to 
twenty-five  millions,  which,  had  it  been  liquidated  in  conformity  to  the 
principles  settled  by  the  commission,  would  have  amounted  to  forty  mil- 
. lions ;  it  is  after  this,  we  are  told,  that  the  Government  has  sacrificed  the 
interests  of  the  country;  for  myself,  I  declare,  there  is  something  want- 
ing to  this  reproach,  which  may  be  found  in  the  treaty,  viz.  justice  and 
reason. 

M.  BiGNON.     I  demand  the  floor. 

The  Minister  of  Foreigiv  Affairs.  I  now  proceed  to  the  second 
portion  of  the  treaty — to  the  Louisiana  question.  The  Chamber  under- 
stands it  already. 

The  Chamber  knows  that  we  claim  for  our  vessels  the  same  treatment 
as  American  vessels  in  the  ports  of  our  ancient  colony,  inasmuch  as  the 
English  have  obtained  that  treatment  but  on  condition  of  reciprocity. 

The  Chamber  knows  that  the  American  Government  answered,  "  If 
you  consider  that  treatment  upon  the  condition  of  leciprocity  a  favor,  we 
offer  it  to  you  ;  you  will  not  accept  it;  then,  by  your  own  admission,  it  is 
not  a  favor,  and  you  have  no  right  to  it." 

The  Chamber  knows,  in   fact,  that  we   claim  the   advantage  without 
making  any  return  ;  we  ask  for  national  treatment  without  reciprocity. 
On  which  side  were  right  and  reason  ? 
It  matters  little  at  the  present  day. 

The  American  Government  in  effect  has  yielded  this  point.  It  has  re- 
cognised the  right  of  France  ;  whether  the  acknowledgment  has  been 
induced  by  conviction,  by  their  being  weary  of  the  controversy,  or  from 
any  other  motive,  is  indifferent ;  it  is  acknowledged,  since  they  offer  to 
redeem  it  with  an  equivalent. 

The  only  question  then  to  be  settled,  and  which  is  not  difficult  of  ex- 
planation, is,  whether  the  equivalent  is  a  full  remuneration. 

What  advantage  would  result  to  the  French  commerce  from  the  privi- 
leges we  claim,  founded  upon  the  eighth  article  of  the  treaty  of  Louisiana  ? 
It  is  that  no  discriminating  duties  will  exist  on  French  shipping.  What 
may  be  the  amount  of  the  discriminating  duty  levied  upon  French  ships  in 
all  the  ports  of  the  Union,  those  of  Louisiana  included  ?  The  duty  is 
of  five  francs  per  ton  by  the  convention  of  the  24th  June. 

What  should  we  gain  by  it  ?  That  depends  on  the  number  and  the 
size  of  the  ships  admitted  into  the  ports  of  Louisiana. 

I  have  directed  a  statement  to  be  prepared  of  the  number  and  tonnage 
of  vessels  admitted  into  the  ports  of  Louisiana,  leaving  intervals  between 
the  years,  for  the  sake  of  greater  precision. 
There  entered  the  ports  of  Louisiana, 


in  the  yeai 

1818, 

29 

vessels, 

of 

- 

7,250  tons. 

1824, 

6 

- 

- 

1,817 

1828, 

8 

- 

- 

2,671 

1830, 

4 

- 

- 

1,096 

1831, 

7 

- 

- 

1,040 

1832, 

15 

- 

- 

3,.561 

52 

490  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

The  amount  of  the  average  duty  paid  is  14,102  francs  50  centimes.  It 
was  not  so  vexatious  as  to  require  much  notice. 

Now  what  advantage  should  we  reap  ?  I  must  here  first  remark,  that 
the  French  commerce  with  Louisiana  is  at  least  stationary,  if  not  declin- 
ing, for,  in  1828,  twenty-nine  French  vessels  entered  the  ports  of  Loui- 
siana, and,  in  1831,  only  seven. 

The  benefit  we  are  to  enjoy  is  a  reduction  in  the  duties  upon  wines.  Our 
commerce  in  wines  with  the  United  States  is  in  a  steady  and  regular  in- 
crease.    Thus  our  exportations  of  wines  amounted 

in  1828,  to         -  -  .  .  £,573,466  francs. 

1829,  -      -      -      -      4,309,093 

1830,  -      -      -      .      4,948,632 

1831,  ....      5,570,378 

1832,  ....      5,295,549 

If  we  take  as  the  basis  of  our  calculation,  the  year  1832,  which  is  not 
the  higiiest,  theie  were  imported  into  America  1,600,000  gallons,  equal  to 
6,000,000  litres,  French  measure;  on  which,  at  a  mean  duty  of  17  cents, 
an  amount  of  1,200,000  francs  was  paid.  In  1834,  in  virtue  of  the  reduc- 
tion, made  by  the  terms  of  the  very  treaty  which  we  are  now  discussing, 
supposing  that  our  commerce  has  not  augmented,  taking  the  year  1832  as  a 
rule,  and  the  wines  being  taxed  at  the  rate  of  7^  cents,  they  would  not 
pay  more  than  80,000  dollars,  equal  to  400,000  francs.  Here  then  is  an 
advantage  of  800,000  francs  per  annum. 

It  is  true,  and  I  readily  admit  it,  that  there  is  not  an  exact  parity  in  the 
cases,  inasmuch  as  the  advantage  resulting  from  the  treaty  of  Louisiana  was 
perpetual,  while  the  diminution  of  duties  which  the  treaty  accords  to  us  iS' 
only  for  ten  years.  But  the  disproportion  is  so  great  that  this  considera- 
tion is  of  no  importance. 

In  fact,  what  will  have  happened  at  the  end  of  ten  years,  supposing 
things  to  remain  as  they  are  ?  The  French  commerce  will  have  been 
benefited  ten  times  800,000  francs,  that  is  to  say,  eight  millions,  whilst, 
upon  the  other  hypothesis,  it  would  be  benefited  ten  times  14,000  francs, 
that  is  to  say,  140,000  francs.  It  therefore  would  require  six  or  seven 
centuries  for  the  latter  to  equal  the  former. 

If  we  are  told  that  the  French  commerce  will  increase  in  the  ports  of 
Louisiana,  we  can  reply,  the  commerce  in  wines  will  also  increase  in  the 
ports  of  the  United  States,  and  that  there  is  a  greater  likelihood  of  the 
latter  than  of  the  former. 

I  believe  then,  that,  in  relation  to  the  second  portion  of  the  treaty,  the 
advantage  is  wholly  on  the  side  of  F'rench  commerce. 

I  have  only  a  word  further  to  say  upon  the  question  of  French  claims, 
and  the  duty  upon  cottons. 

Respecting  the  French  claims — since  1814,  the  Government  has  never 
ceased  urging  those  demands,  and  calling  upon  all  those  interested  to  bring 
them  forward,  and  make  them  known  at  the  Department  of  Foreign 
Affairs. 

These  claims  are  31  in  number  ;  and  it  should  here  be  stated,  that  all 
those  mentioned  in  the  handbills  which  have  been  printed  and  circulated 
about  the  Chamber  for  the  last  two  days,  were  comprised  in  this  number. 
These  claims  were  submitted  to  the  commission  of  1830.  Four  only  were 
found  to  be  susceptible  of  admission  in  a  diplomatic  transaction. 

In  effect,  gentlemen,  there  are  many  claims  which  may  be  founded  in 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  491 

right,  but  for  the  decision  of  which  applicvition  may  be  made  to  the  proper- 
tribunals  in  the  United  States.  They  are  questions  of  property,  which  are 
not  to  be  settled  diplomatically. 

The  commission  of  1830  reduced  those  claims  to  four,  and  the  sum 
total  of  these  four  only  amounts  to  one  million  and  fifty  odd  thousand 
francs.  The  Government  believing  that  the  commission  had  been  some- 
what too  rigorous,  felt  it  their  duty  to  interest  themselves  in  favor  of  some 
other  of  the  claims  which  appeared  most  worthy  of  their  interference. 
They  obtained  1,500,000  francs  ;  and  I  dare  assert  that  it  is  enougli,  and 
more  than  will  be  required  to  satisfy  all  the  claimants  for  whose  rights 
stipulations  can  be  made  in  a  treaty. 

The  question  relative  to  cottons  is  plain.  The  difference  of  duty  between 
lojig  staple  und  short  staple  cottons  was  created  by  the  law  of  1816,  and 
did  not  exist  in  1814;  at  that  time  the  difference  of  duty  corresponded 
to  the  difference  of  value  between  the  two  species  of  cottons,  and  it  was 
that  which  Justified  it.  Since  that  time  the  art  of  spinning  has  been  so  much 
improved  that  the  difference  in  value  has  disappeared  ;  hence,  a  difference 
in  duty  came  to  be  regarded  as  an  absurdity,  which  ought  to  be  abolished. 
Memorials  were  presented  on  this  subject  by  French  merchants.  In  a 
treaty  which  the  French  Government  made  witli  Brazil,  in  1826,  an 
equality  of  duties  was  stipulated  on  long  and  short  staple  cottons,  and  in  a 
law  presented  in  1829,  it  was  proposed,  on  the  part  of  the  customs,  to 
equalize  the  duties  upon  the  two  species  of  cottons.  Wiien,  therefore,  at  the 
moment  of  signing  tlie  treaty  of  1831,  the  American  negotiation  requested 
that  equalization  of  duties  which  the  French  Government  had  itself  pro- 
posed, there  was  no  possible  reason  for  refusing. 

In  the  commencement,  gentlemen,  of  this  long,  perhaps  too  long  dis- 
course, I  asserted  that  the  treaty  was  based  upon  riglit  and  equity ;  I 
believe  1  have  proved  it ;  indemnification  is  due  to  American  ship  owners  j 
we  may  discuss  the  amount,  or  the  facts;  we  may  debate  upon  this  or  that 
application  ;  but  we  cannot  discuss  the  ground  of  right. 

I  have  taken  it  upon  me  equally  to  advance  that  this  treaty  was  based 
upon  equity  and  reason.  I  believe  I  have  proved  that  the  sum  granted  by 
the  bill  is  lower,  much  lower,  than  would  have  been  attained  by  a  rigorous 
adjustment,  settled  upon  the  princijjles  professed  by  th.e  French  Govern- 
ment itself,  at  all  times.  It  is  then  true  that  both  negotiations  have  taken 
into  account  all  that  a  lapse  of  time  could  retrench  from  the  amount  of  such 
claims. 

I  have  said,  in  fine,  that  this  treaty  was  based  upon  the  reciprocal  inte- 
rests of  the  two  contracting  countries.  But  a  word,  a  word  more,  (I  am. 
already  much  fatigued,)  will  suffice  to  explain  my  thought. 

It  depends  upon  you,  gentlemen,  to  render  this  treaty  null  and  void. 
I  ask  pardon  of  the  Chamber.     I  have  spoken  very  long,  and  am  ex- 
hausted with  fatigue.     It  depends  upon  you,  gentlemen,   to  render  this 
treaty  null  and  of  no  force  :  it  depends  upon  you  to  reject  the  law  which  is 
before  you.   Here,  on  this  side  the  Atlantic,  it  is  merely  a  matter  of  black 
and  white  balls  for  voting  ;  but  permit  me  to  assure  you  that  it  does  not 
depend  on  you  to  make  the  Government  of  the  United  States  accept  your 
decision.     The  power  of  depriving  them  of  the  natural  means  they  possess 
of  paying  themselves  with  their  own  hands  does  not  rest  with  your  control. 
The  exports  of  France  for  the  year  1831  amount  to  424,202,754  francs 
Of  this  value  our  exports  to  the  United  States  amount  to  110,351,696 


492  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

fiwincs.     You  consequently  perceive  that  the  United   States  absorb  more 
than  one-fourth  of  our  whole  foreign  commerce. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  add  a  great  many  centimes  upon  the  duties 
tnow  collected  upon  an  amount  of  sucli  value,  to  place  annually  at  the 
*Jispositiou  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  the  sum  of  4,600,000 
francs. 

The  question  is  not,  then,  whether  France  sliall  pay  the  stipulated  sum, 
-otjt  what  Frenchmen  shall  pay  it;  whether  it  be  taken  from  the  general 
treasury,  to  which  all  contribute,  or  paid  by  the  manufacturers  of  Lyons, 
the  merchants  of  Bordeaux,  by  that  portion  of  the  French  commerce  and 
industry  which  maintain  habitual  relations  with  the  United  States. 

To  impose  a  burden  exclusively  upon  one  portion  of  our  commerce  and 
industr}',  would  be  revolting  injustice,  for  the  damage  was  caused  by  the 
.Frencli  Government ;  that  is  to  say,  by  tiie  representative  of  the  taxable 
inhabitants  generally.  Another  equally  gieat  absurdity,  permit  me  to 
say,  would  follow  ;  for,  proceeding  by  increasing  their  tariff,  the  Ameri- 
can Government  would  be  led  to  impose  restrictions  upon  French  indus- 
try, productive  of  infinitely  greater  injury  than  the  amount  of  the  sum 
collected.  The  ordinary  result  of  higii  tariffs  is  to  restrict  and  limit  the 
markets. 

You  have  been,  indeed,  told  tiiat  you  have  not  this  result  to  fear  ;  that 
-the  American  Government  w  ill  view,  with  a  tranquil  eye,  with  entire 
T^ant  of  interest,  and  without  any  sentiment  of  displeasure,  the  rejection 
and  annulment  of  the  treaty  in  debate. 

You  have  been  told  that  they  would  remain  passive  spectators  of  the 
result.  I  am  under  tlie  impression  that  the  foretellers  of  ;such  events  have 
not  attentively  read  the  debates  winch  took  plare  two  years  since  in  the 
Congress  of  tiie  United  States;  that  they  have  not  attentively  read  the 
annual  messages  of  the  President  of  that  republic.  If  they  had  read  them, 
J  am  convinced  that  tlieir  confidence,  in  this  respect,  would  have  been 
much  weakened. 

In  order  to  prove  to  you  that  the  American  tariff  was  framed  only  with 
a  view  to  American  interests,  and  not  relating  to  ours,  the  question  of 
silks  has  been  cited.  The  illustration  is  not  happy.  It  is  true  that  the 
Americati  Government,  by  a  general  measure,  reduced  the  duties  upon  the 
silks  of  Fiance  simultaneously  with  those  of  China,  viz.  the  first  from  £2 
per  cent,  to  5  per  cent.,  and  the  latter  from  S6  per  cent,  to  10  ])er  cent. 
But  it  should  have  been  added,  tliat  the  result  of  this  double  reduction  dis- 
turbed the  established  proportion  between  the  duties  upon  the  two  kinds  of 
silk,  and  the  effect  produced  was  the  almost  entire  exclusion  of  French. 
ailks  from  the  markets  of  the  United  States. 

What  have  we  done  ?  We  haNC  availed  ourselves  of  the  treaty  you  are 
now  debating  ;  and,  advancing  those  important  considerations  which  re- 
sult from  its  existence,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  relations  which  it  esta- 
blishes between  the  two  Governments,  we  solicited  the  restoration  of  the 
|)roportion. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  listened  to  us,  and,  at  our  re- 
quest, they  hastened  to  reduce  the  duties  upon  French  silks,  even  to  the 
.▼)olnt  of  admitting  them  free  of  duty,  still  maintaining  the  duties  which  had 
been  established  upon  the  silks  of  China. 

I  ought  to  inform  the  Chamber,  upon  the  declaration  of  persons  skilled 
la  these  matters,  that,  upon  the  continuance  of  this  difTereuce,  which  we 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  493 

Iiave  obtained  by  reason  of  this  treaty,  will  be  decided'  the  admission  ol 
French  silks  in  the  markets  of  the  United  States,  or  their  exclusion  from 
them.     [Much  sensation  in  the  Chamber.] 

It  will  be  unnecessary  for  me  to  dwell  upon  cojisideiations  of  public 
order,  which  are  inseparable  fiom  the  question.  I  will  only  observe  ta 
the  Chamber,  that  if,  by  a  decision  which  1  must  be  permitted  to  call  de- 
plorable, there  should  be  suddenly  produced  any  great  discouragement  in 
many  branches  of  our  industry,  any  gicat  disturbance  in  our  foreign  mar- 
kets, it  would  multiply  considerably  tlie  chances  of  disorder  in  our  coun- 
try;  and  that  the  least  of  these  inconvcniencics  would  oblige  us  to  do  for 
Bourdeaux,  for  Lyons,  ajid  for  other  cities,  what  we  have  been  compelled 
to  do  for  La  Vendee,  to  increase  our  military  establishment.  [A  slight  agi- 
tation in  the  Chamber.]  It  would  not  bo  necessary  that  this  increase  should 
be  very  great  to  absorb  the  saving  whicli  is  proposed  for  the  relief  of  the 
tax-payers.     [Mnrmnrs  more  distiHctlij  pronoun  ceil.] 

Gentlemen,  one  of  the  honorable  members  said,  in  cowcluding  his 
speech,  «  do  you  believe  tijat  if  the  treaty  of  1831  was  yet  to  be  made. 
a  minister  could  be  found  w  ho  would  consent  to  sign  it  ?''  My  reply  will 
be  very  short,  and  very  plain.  I  believe  that  treaty  to  be  just ,;  I  believe 
it  to  be  wise.  I  accept,  in  all  that  concerns  me  personally,  the  responsi- 
bility bequeathed  me  by  my  jiredecessor.  As  to  the  responsibility  for 
events  and  consequences,  from  this  moment  forward,  gentlemen,  it  is  not 
upon  our  head  that  it  rests.  Our  task  is  finished  ;  yours  commences.  [Loud 
signs  of  approbation  followed  this  speech  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  ^Sffairs.] 

The  President. 

M.  Berryer  has  the  floor. 

M.  Berryer. 

M.  Bignon  wishes  to  reply  to  something  which  concerns  him  pcrson'- 
ally. 

M.  BiGxox. 

After  the  (Hscourse  which  you  have  just  heard,  the  ingc;niity  of  which 
I  admire,  although  I  cannot  approve  of  the  conclusions,  the  deputy  from- 
Andelys  entreats  the  Cliamber  to  extend  to  him  their  indulgence. 

Before  I  enter  upon  the  question,  I  must  recur  to  a  circumstance  ta> 
which  the  minister  adverted  during  the  sitting  of  the  Chamber  on  Friday 
last.  He  repeated  an  assertion  which  I  had  made,  and  which  he  consi- 
dered incorrect.  There  was  an  erroi-  of  language  on  my  part,  but  the 
idea  was  true.  I  said  the  minister  was  tardy  in  presenting  his  bill.  I 
should  have  said  that  the  debate  on  the  bill  had  been  deferred,  and  that 
this  delay  was  the  work  of  the  ministry. 

Wiien  the  bill  was  brought  to  the  Chamber,  for  the  first  time,  if  I 
am  well  informed,  the  committee  were  astonished  at  tiic  refusal  of  the 
minister  to  supply  the  documents  which  they  requested  ;  and  no  re- 
port was  made  upon  it.  At  the  ft)llowing  session  the  bill  was  presented 
somewhat  later.  If  the  minister  had  truly  attached  any  importance  to  an 
early  discussion  of  the  law,  I  here  declare  that  the  Chamber  would  have 
taken  up  the  matter  immediately.  If  the  discussion  has  not  taken  place,. 
it  is  because  it  was  not  desired.  [.1/»rmJi?-s.]  Gentlemen,  when  we  de- 
liberate upon  burdenitig  the  nation  with  a  contribution  of  twcnty-fiye  mil- 
lions, the  question  should  not  remain  long  undecided.  On  that  subject  the 
minority  and  majority  perfectly  agree.  The  delay  which  has  occurreil,. 
then,  does  not  attach  to  us. 


494  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

In  listening  to  tlic  minister,  I  avow  that  I  was  mucl»  surjirised  at  hear- 
ing such  a  s])cccli  uttered  by  a  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  :  his 
language  would  better  have  suited  an  American  minister. 

I  have  always  thought  that,  under  all  forms  of  Government,  whether  re- 
publican, imperial,  or  royal,  the  interest  of  France  was  always  the  same  : 
but  the  minister  has  judged  otherwise.  He  has  ransacked  the  arcjiives  of 
his  department  for  the  discovery  of  wrongs  inflicted  by  the  Imperial  Go- 
vernment. Does  he  suppose  that  if  we  could  penetrate  the  cabinets  of 
foreign  nations,  and  examine  their  archives,  all  their  resolutions  would  be 
found  just,  frank  and  irreproachable?  He  does  not  believe  it.  In  his 
reflections  he  has  suff^ered  the  moialist  and  the  philosopher  to  supersede 
the  statesman.  Gentlemen,  it  is  not  possible  to  follow  the  minister  through- 
out the  long  course  of  his  explanations.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  me  to  re- 
ply to  the  ])rincipal  points  of  his  discourse. 

On  Saturday  last,  one  of  the  positions  I  assumed  was,  tliat  the  losses  of 
the  Americans  had  been  ara])ly  compensated  by  the  immensity  of  their 
profits.  The  minister  says  that  the  profits  of  a  part  do  not  compensate 
for  the  losses  of  the  remainder.  That  is  true  ;  but  it  was  one  of  those  un- 
avoidable calamities  which  nations,  placed  between  great  belligerent  Pow- 
ers, must  endure.  Under  such  circumstances,  they  should  indemnify 
their  own  citizens..  They  are  rich  enough  to  do  it.  The  Americans  have 
the  ways  and  means  in  abundance. 

Since  the  minister  has  again  dwelt  on  the  severity  of  the  Berlin  decree, 
lie  obliges  me  to  return  to  the  demonstration  made  by  the  Americans  them- 
selves, that  the  English  decidedly  took  the  lead  in  those  measures.  In 
1810  the  American  Government  wrote  to  Mr.  Pinkney,  their  minister 
in  London,  to  urge  upon  flie  British  ministry  '<  the  revocation  of  the  illegal 
blockade  of  the  French  ports,  declared  anterior  to  the  decree  of  Berlin,'^ 
as  a  step  towards  the  ulterior  demand  of  the  revocation  of  that  decree. 

"  It  is  impossible,"  continued  the  Federal  Government,  "  to  sustain, 
that  a  blockade,  such  as  that  of  May,  1806,  of  the  whole  coast,  from  the  Elbe 
to  Brest,  that  is,  declared  four  years  ago,  wiihout  ever  having  been  executed, 
or  attempted  to  be  executed  by  a  naval  force,  can  be  in  conformity  with  the 
laws  of  nations,  or  compatible  with  the  rights  of  neutrals.*' 

The  Briiigh  Cabinet  insisting  that  the  blockade  existed,  inasmuch  as 
they  had  it  in  their  power  to  enforce  it,  the  Federal  Government  replied  : 
^'  If  it  were  admitted  that  a  sufticient  force,  from  the  very  fact  of  its  exist- 
ence, be  susceptible  of  being  apjilied  to  this  particular  object,  we  see  evi- 
dently how  absurd  it  is  to  confound  the  power  of  doing  the  thing  with 
the  reality  of  the  action.  The  absurdity  of  such  reasoning  is  manifest ,;  a 
port  blockaded  by  sea  without  a  ship  before  it,  is  a  contradiction  of  terms, 
as  well  as  a  viol  ation  of  law  and  common  sense."  This  is  not  my  lan- 
guage ;  it  is  the  language  of  the  American  Government.  It  appears  to 
me  that  the  argument  is  unanswerable.  Whatever  applies  to  the  decree 
of  Berlin,  is  equally  applicable  to  all  the  measures  successively  adopted  by 
their  Government. 

A  great  part  of  the  minister's  speech  was  intended  to  establish  the  fact 
that  indemnification  was  due,  without  determining  the  amount.  Upon 
that  point  we  agree  with  him  perfectly,  and  I  declared  so  at  the  beginning 
of  the  debate. 

The  minister  has  thought  proper  to  indulge  himself  in  some  ironical 
remarks  upon  the  comparison  which  I  drew  between  the  relative  situations 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  495 

of  France  and  tlie  American  Government  at  tlie  conclusion  of  the  war  of 
1814.  I  admire  wit  under  many  circumstances  :  but  I  think  it  ill-timed, 
when  so  grave  a  question  is  under  debate.  I  doubt  that  it  would  prove 
acceptable  to  the  tax-payei's. 

The  point  upon  which  the  minister  most  strenuously  insisted,  was,  the 
commercial  advantages  given  in  exchange  for  those  secured  to  us  by  the 
treaty  of  Louisiana. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  not  repeat  what  I  have  sr.id  lelative  to  the  motives 
which  induced  the  Americans  to  make  tlie  concessions  which  they  apj)ear 
to  have  made.  But  as  they  adopted  those  measures  for  themselves,  they 
will  continue  them  for  their  own  inteiests.  Those  interests  the  Federal 
Government  understands  marvellously  well  ;  let  us  take  care  of  our  own. 

If  the  American  Government  siiould  determine  upon  any  rigorous  mea- 
sures towards  us,  we  have  it  in  our  jjower  to  retaliate.  In  the  treaty  of 
1822,  the  French  Government  consented  to  a  sort  of  reciprocity  upon  the 
tonnage  of  French  and  American  ships. 

That  clause  has  been  very  advantageous  to  the  United  States,  as  their 
navigation  is  conducted  more  economically  tiian  ours.  Their  ships  fill 
our  harbors.  Few  French  vessels  go  to  the  United  States.  If,  tiierefore, 
which  I  do  not  believe  however,  the  American  (iovcrnnient  should  mani- 
fest any  unfavorable  dispositions  towards  us,  retaliation  is  ])roinpt  and 
easy  ;  may  it  please  Heaven  to  avert  such  an  event  !  For  my  own  part,  I 
have  too  much  confidence  in  the  wisdom  and  ability  of  the  American  Go- 
vernment, ever  to  believe  in  the  necessity. 

Gentlemen,  w  hatever  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affaii-s  may  have  said, 
the  question  is  divided  into  two  piincipal  parts  :  first,  the  origin  of  the 
pecuniary  disputes  between  the  United  States  and  France ;  and,  secondly, 
the  payments  which  have  been  agreed  upon. 

The  pecuniary  disjiute  originated  fj-om  the  great  measure  adopted  in 
1803,  and  agreed  upon  between  the  two  countries  for  the  independence  of 
the  flag.  From  the  moment  that  the  American  Government  ceased  to  cause 
its  flag  to  be  respected  by  the  English,  they  had  no  riglitto  demand  tliat  it 
should  he  respected  by  France. 

The  Federal  Government  submitted  to  every  species  of  violence  which 
the  English  Government  chose  to  inflict.  On  the  other  hand  its  profits 
were  immense.  The  profits  were  for  them  ;  the  losses  for  us.  Tiiey  ought 
not  in  conscience  to  be  so  avaricious. 

The  minister  pretends  that  the  argument  1  used,  showing  that  the 
Americans  had  indemnified  themselves,  was  not  admissible,  and  carried 
witli  it  its  own  refutation. 

I  beg  pardon  of  the  minister  :  if  tlic  Emperor  Napoleon  had  not  fallen 
in  1814,  he  could  with  justice  have  said  to  the  Americans — yourcommercc 
with  Francois  now  jjrosecuted  only  on  certain  conditions  :  you  are  at  war 
with  England  ;  I  maintain,  with  respect  to  you,  existing  conditions,  and  I 
will  not  repeal  them  until  these  claims,  about  which  you  are  so  importu- 
nate, are  settled  between  us — the  American  Government  would  have  yield- 
ed, and  the  claims  would  have  been  cancelled. 

This  leads  me  to  tlie  observation  of  the  minister  relative  to  the  eighty 
licenses,  which  he  thinks  could  not  be  estimated  at  less  tlian  eighty  mil- 
lions. He  has  supposed  the  price  of  each  of  these  licenses  at  a  million, 
whilst  they  could  not  in  general  be  more  tiian  half  a  million  francs,  which 
would  reduce  the  sum  to  forty  millions.     It  should  be  further  remarked, 


496  f  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

that  when  the  Americans  demanded  to  be  paid  thus  with  licenses,  tliey  en- 
gaged at  the  same  time  to  import  into  the  United  States  from  France  or 
Italy,  an  amount  equal  to  the  proceeds  of  the  niei'cliandise  imported  in 
virtue  of  llie  licenses.  Here  is  a  capital  point,  an  important  consideration 
for  estimating  the  indemnification. 

Wc  see,  from  this,  that  the  Americans  at  that  time  did  not  extend  their 
claims  higlier  than  twenty  or  twenty-five  millions.  It  was  the  Emperor 
who  decided  not  to  grant  those  licenses,  because  he  perceived  that  this 
mode  of  indemnification  would  give  rise  to  shameful  speculations,  incom- 
patible with  the  dignity  of  the  two  countries. 

Gentlemen,  I  have  not  contested  the  principle  of  indemnification.  I 
have  read  with  attention  the  report  of  the  commission  of  1831 — I  found  it 
well  and  skilfully  drawn  up.  In  it  I  recognised  the  sentiments  of  wise 
and  conscientious  men,  wlio  had  reduced  our  debt  to  its  just  value.  I 
think  the  sum  of  twelve  millions  would  suffice  to  jiay  what  is  justly  due  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States.  I  conclude  this  discourse,  therefore, 
as  I  did  ray  former  one. 

M.  Berryer. 

Gentlemen:  I  ask  pardon  of  the  Cliamber  for  prolonging  this  discussion  ; 
but  I  could  not  resist  tiie  desiie  of  submitting  some  observations,  which 
are  called  for  by  the  speech  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.  Reason 
and  equity  have  been  invoked  in  defence  of  the  treaty  before  you,  to  which 
the  bill  now  submitted  is  intended  to  give  sanction.  Ita])pears  to  me  that, 
as  regards  equity  and  i-eason,  tiici-e  are  many  other  considerations  which 
attach  to  the  facts  which  the  minister  has  stated  with  so  much  ingenuity, 
but  upon  which  he  does  not  seem  to  have  pondered  at  all. 

The  history  of  diplomatic  relations,  during  the  course  of  thirty  years  of 
hostilities,  undoubtedly  presents  a  long  succession  of  acts  of  violence  and 
animosity  .*  but  one  reflection,  of  much  force,  arises  from  the  speech  of  the 
Hon.  M.  Bignon,  delivered  at  a  previous  sitting  of  the  Chamber.  It  is, 
that  in  tlic  midst  of  all  the  calamities  of  the  belligerent  Powers,  in  the 
midst  of  the  depiedations  undei-  the  orders  in  council,  or  under  the  imperial 
decrees  of  Berlin,  Milan,  and  Rambouiliet,  a  Power  exists  in  the  world, 
which,  notwithstanding  the  calamities  of  all  others,  has  gone  on  regularly 
increasing  and  prospering. 

This  Power  is  that  of  the  United  States,  with  theirterritory  considerably 
augmented,  extending  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  ;  their  rivalship  Avilh  the 
maritime  force  of  England  happily  sustained  and  increasing.  Such  is  the 
spectacle  offered  us  by  the  United  States  ;  and  in  the  mean  time,  it  is  to  the 
subjects  of  this  Power  that  we  are  now  to  determine  what  indemnification 
France  shall  allow.  This  general  consideration,  which  has  been  presented 
by  M.  Bignon,  appears  to  me  of  a  nature  to  make  an  impression  upon  all 
minds,  in  a  (piestion  which  may  be  reduced,  after  all,  to  one  of  equity  and 
reason  ;  but  let  us  letuin  to  facts. 

The  minister,  in  reviewing  the  period  between  1793  and  1800,  has  no- 
ticed those  outrages  committed  in  violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  of  the 
rules  admitted  by  nations  with  respect  to  maiitime  rights.  It  is  very  true 
that  during  that  ])eriod,  measures  unheai-d  of  were  adopted  by  the  French 
Government,  and  neutral  rights  constantly  invaded.  The  Directory  even 
carried  things  so  far  as  to  break  the  happy  alliance  with  the  United 
States,  w  hich  was  the  fi'uits  of  the  generous  policy  of  Louis  XYI.  But  in 
3  800  the  Government  passed  into  abler  hands,  and  became  animated  with 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  497 

a  better  spirit.  The  treaty  of  September,  1800,  was  then  formed,  which 
only  re-established  between  the  two  Powers  a  recognition  of  the  common 
rules  of  right. 

Relative  to  tiie  claims  of  neutrals,  or  to  the  deprcdatioriS  which  they 
bad  suffered,  nothing  was  said,  or  at  least  notiiing  was  done.  This  treaty 
showed  that  the  subject  would  be  discussed  at  a  future  j)criod. 

Three  years  elapsed.  Peace -had  been  attempted  in  the  intervening 
period.  It  was  even  concluded  ;  but  that  peace,  you  know,  \Nas  only  a 
truce.  The  First  Consul  was  eager  to  effect  political  objects,  which  he  was 
probably  soon  obliged  to  abandon,  in  order  to  conclude  an  arrangement 
with  Spain  resj)ecting  the  rights  of  France  to  Louisiana.  Scarcely  was  he 
invested  with  this  right — he  liad  not  even  obtained  possession — when  he 
understood  that  his  ])osition  was  different,  and  felt  that  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  preserve  to  France  tiie  magnificent  teriitory  of  Xesv  Orleans.  He 
said  to  his  council,  that  it  would  be  folly  to  persist  in  the  idea  of  its  pre- 
servation ;  that  it  was  evident,  fi-om  the  situation  of  the  two  Powers,  Eng- 
land could  easily  obtain  possession  of  our  posts  in  Louisiana  by  a  single 
hostile  movement,  and  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  surrender  them 
to  satisfy  the  demands  made  by  the  Government  of  tite  United  States, 
which  claimed  tlie  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  port  of  New 
Orleans.  I  will  do  more,  said  he ;  I  will  give  the  whole  colony.  The 
Emperor  spoke  thus,  in  the  belief  of  the  incieasiug  prosperity  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  the  advantages  which  a  good  understanding  between  France 
and  that  nation  would  some  day  produce  to  French  commerce. 

The  treaty  of  1803  followed,  wherein,  yielding  every  satisfaction  requir- 
ed by  the  United  States,  exceeding  that  even,  he  abandoned  to  them  not 
only  all  they  asked,  but  the  possession  of  Louisiana,  for  tiie  sum  of  80  mil- 
lions, of  which  20  millions  were  assigned  to  indemnify  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  for  spoliations  committed  during  the  preceding  period. 

Tins  treaty,  besides  the  special  stipulation  for  80  milliinis,  contained 
two  clauses,  arts.  7  and  8,  for  the  advantage  of  France. 

Art.  7  stipulated  that,  for  the  jteriod  (»f  twelve  years,  the  vessels  of 
France  should  be  admitted  in  the  ports  of  the  Union  upon  the  same  footing 
as  American  vessels.  Art.  8  stijjulated  that,  after  the  lapse  of  twelve 
years,  French  vessels  should  be  received,  forever,  as  the  minister  has  said, 
in  the  ceded  territories,  upon  tiie  footing  of  the  most  favored  nations.  This 
■was  briefly  said  in  terminating  his  speech,  and  the  minister  appeared  to 
attach  but  little  importance  to  the  stipulations  in  art.  8,  affecting  the 
French  commerce.  He  has  contemptuously  placed  tlicm  in  contrast 
with  the  5th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1831,  whicli  regulates  the  tariff  for  the 
introduction  of  the  wines  of  France  in  the  ports  of  the  Union;  he  lias 
shown  their  disproportion  ;  and  that  it  would  rc(]uire  six  or  seven  centuries 
to  obtain,  by  the  execution  of  the  8th  article,  the  advantages  which  will 
be  derived  in  ten  years  frsm  the  execution  of  the  5th  article  of  the  treaty 
of  1831.     I  believe  I  understood  him  correctly. 

I  w  ill  reply  hereafter  to  this  [loint ;  but  at  jiresent  I  must  assert  that  the 
consequences  of  the  treaty  of  1803  were  not  so  lightly  appreciated  at  the 
time  when  that  treaty  was  formed.  Animated  debates  took  place  in  Con- 
gress when  the  question  was  agitated,  whether  the  treaty  should  be  rati- 
fied, and  whether  they  should  give  to  President  Jefferson  the  necessary 
powers  to  ratify  it. 


498  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

The  envoys  of  the  United  States  at  Paris,  Mr.  Livingston  and  Mr. 
Monroe  who  liad  been  specially  associated  with  him,  represented  the  im- 
portant consequences  of  the  execution  of  the  8th  article  of  the  proposed 
treaty,  and  declared  that  the  United  States  were  giving  immense  advan- 
tages to  France. 

The  correspondence  relative  to  these  negotiations  has  been  published  in 
America ;  every  member  of  the  Senate  was  possessed  of,  it.  We  do  not 
enjoy  this  advantage  in  France..  Our  coniniittees  receive  some  communi- 
cations; but  it  is  impossible  for  the  members  of  the  Chamber,  who  are  not 
of  the  committee,  to  acquire  an  exact  knowledge  of  facts.  We  are  also 
compelled  to  be  silent  relative  to  details,  and  to  argue  upon  general  consi- 
derations from  authentic  documents. 

I  come  to  what  is  public.  In  1803  Bonaparte  said,  *'  By  the  cession  of 
Louisiana,  I  maintain  the  stability  of  the  United  States;  I  guaranty  their 
sti'ength  ;  and  I  succeed  in  creating  upon  the  ocean  a  formidable  rival  to 
England,  which  soener  or  later  will  humble  her  pride." 

On  the  other  side,  Mr.  Livingston  said,  in  his  note,  "  that  as  France, 
by  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty,  acquires  the  right  to  be  treated  in  our  ports 
as  the  most  favored  Power,  she  will  have  in  truth  the  advantages  of  the 
colony  of  Louisiana  without  the  expense."  This  is  the  language  of  Mr. 
Livingston's  note — assertions  which,  in  the  conferences  that  ensued,  were 
not  refuted. 

I  recall  these  facts  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what  is  true,  that  neither 
in  France  nor  America,  in  a  long  course  of  years,  has  so  little  importance 
ever  been  attached  to  the  execution  of  the  8th  article,  as  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  appears  to  attach  to-day.  However  it  may  be,  let  us  see 
what  acts  followed  the  treaty  of  1800,  by  which  principles  had  been  set- 
tled, and  bonds  had  been  formed,  for  uniting  more  closely  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  to  France.  The  acts  which  followed  contradict  noto- 
riously the  noble  professions  of  the  principles  of  the  treaty  of  1800.  1  will 
not  recapitulate  the  succession  of  acts  either  of  England,  France,  or  the 
United  States;  but  it  was  in  the  midst  of  this  general  conflagration,  that 
the  Americans  obstinately  persisted  in  directing  their  vessels  to  the  ports 
of  France,  or  to  the  countries  occupied  by  the  French  armies.  You  must 
have  felt  the  force  of  the  observation  made  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs. In  retaliation  for  the  decrees  of  Milan  and  Berlin,  and  to  protect 
their  subjects,  they  passed  the  embargo  ad,  hoping  thus  to  escape  the 
double  danger  with  which  they  appeared  to  be  menaced  by  the  English 
orders  in  council  and  the  imperial  decrees. 

The  commercial  Advantages  for  the  United  States  were  so  considerable, 
fin  consequence  of  the  enormous  price  which  the  products  of  America  com- 
manded on  the  Continent,  that  you  find  the  subjects  of  the  States  of  the 
Union  disobeying  the  laws  of  their  own  country.  Notwithstanding  the 
embargo  in  all  the  ports  of  the  Union,  which  interdicted  the  sailing  of 
ships,  you  find  these  ships  launching  forth  and  carrying  their  merchandise 
to  every  part  of  the  globe.  I  am  therefore  not  surprised  that  they  should 
expose  themselves  to  the  decisions  of  the  English  tribunals,  or  to  the  effect 
of  the  imperial  decrees  of  France.  I  can  comprehend  the  powerful  charm 
which  enticed  them  to  run  the  chances.  And  when  the  American  Govern- 
ment understood  that  the  embargo  law,  which  appeared  to  be  a  measure 
of  wisdom  to  protect  their  own  subjects,  did  not  restrain  them,  and  that 
the  great  profits  enticed  them  to  run  every  risk  between  the  belligerent 


[  Doc.  No.   2.  ]  499 

Powers,  they  enacted  tlie  non-intercourse  latv ;  and  you  have  seen,  not- 
withstanding this  formal  prob.ihition  to  Americans,  made  by  their  Govern- 
ment, to  carry  on  any  commerce  either  with  France  or  England,  or  to 
import  into  the  United  States  any  of  the  j)roductions  of  France  or  England, 
yet  they  persisted,  for  the  interest  of  their  commercial  speculations,  and  to 
obtain  the  great  profits  of  a  good  voyage,  which  might  cover  several  bad 
ones,  violated  the  law  o(  non-intercourse. 

Upon  the  point  of  equity,  M.  Bignon  has  told  you,  that  when  we  treat 
with  a  State,  we  should  take  into  consideration  commei-cial  operations 
generally,  and  before  we  make  tiie  people  of  France  pay  twenty-five  mil- 
lions to  the  Americans,  we  should  examine  the  true  jjosition  of  the  Ameri- 
can Governn)ent.  Profits  were  so  considerable,  tluit,  in  spite  of  both  the 
acts  of  their  own  Government,  the  Americans  encountcied  the  risk  of  two 
or  three  unfortunate  voyages,  to  cover  by  one  successful  oriC,  the  two  or 
three  preceding  failures.  M.  Bignon  was  then  correct  in  opposing  to  the 
losses  which  were  arrayed  on  one  side,  the  enormous  profits  which  had 
been  realized  on  the  other. 

It  has  been  said  that  those  who  were  the  sufferers  by  the  confiscation  or 
destruction  of  their  vessels  were  not  indemnified  for  their  losses  by  the 
profits  which  others  reaped  in  other  voyages ;  that  is  very  possible ;  but 
we  are  not  now  in  treaty  with  individuals  in  arbitration  between 
France  and  each  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  The  intention  even 
of  the  treaty  is  not  to  pay  the  indemnification  judicially  and  individually 
awarded  to  etich  of  the  complaining  parties  of  the  United  States  ;  but  we 
are  deb.iting  a  treaty  with  the  American  Government,  which  provides  for 
payment  to  them  of  a  sum  of  money  which  they  will  divide  among  the 
claimants. 

The  question  being  considered  under  this  general  point  of  view,  as  be- 
tween State  and  State,  and  as  a  question  of  good  faith  and  equity,  in  the 
midst  of  all  these  outrages,  when  the  Americans  had  been  led  to  brave  them 
by  the  thirst  of  gain,  with  the  certainty  that  the  success  of  a  single  enter- 
J)rise  would  cover  the  loss  of  several,  does  equity  demand  that  indemnifica- 
tion should  be  made  to  the  American  merchants  ? 

Itisassertedthat,  after  these  dates,  viz.  1807,  1809,  1810,  and  1811,  du- 
ring which  things  were  in  tiiis  situation,  the  Americans  puisuing  upon  the 
ocean  their  hazardous  enterprises,  the  Imperial  Government  was  animated 
with  favorable  dispositions  to  the  United  States.  That,  upon  the  arrival 
of  Mr.  Barlow  in  France,  negotiations  were  commenced  ;  that  rejjorts 
were  made  to  the  Emperor;  reports,  in  which,  without  naming  a  definite 
sum,  a  disposition  was  manifested  to  do  justice  to  the  claims  of  Americans 
who  had  been  injured  in  consetpience  of  the  general  measures  which  the 
Emperor  had  been  compelled  to  adojjt  dur-ing  the  war  against  England  ; 
and  that  thirteen  millions  might  be  an  equitable  indemnification — [J  J/fm- 
her,  ^'' Eighteen  millions  P']  I  am  aware  that  it  was  stated  that  the  sum 
might  be  raised  as  a  greater  favor  to  eighteen  millions  ;  but  that  named  in 
1812  was  only  thirteen  millions. 

I  will  not  attack  the  policy  of  1812.  Nevertheless,  we  should  bear  in 
mind  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Imperial  Government  was  placed,  be- 
fore we  condemn  ourselves,  as  if  there  had  emanated  from  this  Government 
a  positive  recognition  of  the  justice  of  the  claim  of  the  Americans,  and  as 
if  a  report  made  to  the  Emperor  upon  some  possible  indemnification  was 
an  engagement  for  France  to  pay  it. 


500  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

What  was  tlie  position  of  the  Emperor  and  of  the  United  States  ?  "War 
had  been  declared  between  the  United  States  and  England.  Tliis  war 
was  prosecuted  with  great  vigor.  The  English  cntei  prise  against  New 
Orleans  was  in  preparation.  It  was  imj)ortant  to  the  policy  of  Napoleon, 
whose  vast  genius  moved  the  destinies  of  the  whole  world,  to  sustain  the 
United  States  in  their  hostility  to  England.  I  can  very  well  understand 
why,  in  1812,  the  Emperor  flattered  the  hopes  of  the  Americans  with  the 
possibility  of  a  sacrifice  of  thirteen  millions,  to  satisfy  their  claims,  whether 
well  or  ill  founded.  I  can  understand  that  he  miglit  have  made  this 
sacrifice  voluntarily,  in  order  to  secure  steadiness  of  intention  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  against  England,  with  which  he  was  struggling  at 
that  period. 

Thus,  gentlemen,  let  us  attach  to  the  acts  of  1812,  to  the  report  esti- 
mating the  possible  indemnification  at  thirteen  millions,  that  importance 
only  which  they  merit  on  account  of  the  relative  positions  of  England  and 
Napoleon,  of  the  United  States  and  Napoleon,  and  of  England  and  the 
United  States. 

These  are  the  circumstances  which  enable  us  to  appreciate  the  true  cha- 
racter of  the  hopes  which  Napoleon  had  given  to  Barlow,  aiid  other  Ame- 
rican ministers.  The  year  1814  comes  round,  and  every  thing  suddenly 
changes.  The  great  English  expedition  against  New  Orleans  had  failed  ; 
but  it  was  not  known  at  Ghent  in  December,  1814,  that  the  enterprise  had 
been  unsuccessful.  They  were  then  negotiating  with  the  Americans  at 
Ghent,  and  a  treaty  was  there  concluded  between  England  and  the  United 
States. 

What  were  the  stipulations,  and  what  were  the  consequences  of  this 
treaty?  They  were  announced,  I  believe,  in  the  exposition  accompanying 
the  bill  which  was  presented  to  us  a  year  ago.  They  were,  that  English 
vessels  shall  enjoy  the  privileges  of  American,  in  the  ports  of  the  Union  j 
to  which  was  added,  that  a  reciprocity  was  consented  to  by  England. 

At  the  close  of  1816  the  Americans  presented  a  note  to  the  French  Go- 
vernment. M.  de  Richelieu,  in  the  noble  idea  of  seeking  to  establish  a 
durable  harmony  amongst  all  Powers,  in  his  excessive  desire  to  exhibit 
France  fulfilling  all  just  obligations,  gave  no  decision  ;  but  he  returned  a 
favorable  answer  to  the  minister  of  the  United  States,  and  intimated  that, 
under  more  favorable  circumstances,  France  would  do  justice  to  that  note. 
This  act  of  M.  Richelieu  was  an  act  of  loyalty — the  act  of  an  honest  man. 
In  the  ])osition  of  the  Government,  at  that  time,  in  the  midst  of  excessive 
embarrassments,  at  the  moment  when  all  Europe  was  ])re.ssing  upon  her, 
France  was  obliged  to  consent  to  the  enormous  indemnifications  arising 
from  the  long  war  of  30  years.  M.  Richelieu  intimated  to  a  friendly  Go- 
vernment, to  a  Government  which  owed  its  existence  to  the  protection  of 
France,  to  the  policy  of  the  Cabitiet  of  Louis  XVI,  that  all  would  be  done 
which  could  be  done  to  give  it  satisfaction. 

Nevertheless,  if  we  were  to  consider  as  engagements  the  lettei'S  which 
he  wrote  under  the  general  idea  he  entertained  in  that  loyalty,  for  which  he 
was  universally  respected,  it  would  be  going  too  far.  The  United  States 
were  not  the  only  Power  w  ith  which  he  made  no  engagements ;  he  made 
similar  promises  to  others. 

He  expressed  himself  to  the  same  effect,  and  even  in  more  positive  terms, 
with  regard  to  Denmark. 

Denmark  has  also  a  claim  for  losses  during  the  war,  and  for  supplies 


[13  oc.  No.  2.  ]  501 

for  tlie  French  troops.  [Denials  from  the  ministerial  benches.]  Fourteen 
millions  are  claimed.  This  claim  is  not  abandoned,  and  so  far  from  being 
suspended,  that  I  hold  in  my  hands  tiie  powers  given  to  French  speculators 
hy  the  King  of  Denmark  himself,  to  urge  them  in  his  name. 

M.  GuizoT,  [^Minister  of  Insti'iiction.] 
There  are  none  such. 

M.  Berryer. 

I  ask  i)ardon.  This  claim  is  still  before  the  Fi-ench  Government.  It 
has  occasioned  the  exchange  of  a  great  number  of  notes,  whicii  the  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Affairs  can  find  among  the  archives  of  his  department. 
Many  of  those  notes  were  known  to  me  jjersonally.  'J  his  claim  of  four- 
teen millions  grew  out  of  the  acts  whicli  took  place  during  the  war,  and 
upon  tlie  kind  of  promise  made  by  M.  Richelieu.  We  have  it  in  our  power 
to  cite  some  other  cases. 

The  consetjuences  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent  between  the  United  States  and 
England  were  soon  apparent.  What  has  been  the  language  of  the  French 
administration  w  hen  tiie  question  of  indemnifying  the  Americans  has  been 
brought  forward,  from  time  to  time,  as  if  to  lead  to  a  more  important  dis- 
cussion ?  What  has  been  its  answer  ? — Begin  by  executing  treaties  w itii 
us ;  for  twelve  years  we  were  prevented  from  profiting  by  the  advanta- 
geous stipulations  of  the  rth  article  of  the  treaty  concluded  in  1803,  and 
you  now  come  to  prefer  this  claim  :  but  tiie  8th  article  still  remains,  wliich 
assures  us  that  we  shall  be  treated  on  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  na- 
tions. Very  well:  but  you  have  stipulated  with  England  for  treatment  on 
a  national  footing  ;  grant  us  the  same  thing  :  treat  France  as  you  treat 
England  ;  and,  in  the  payment  of  imports  and  tonnage  duties,  let  French 
vessels  be  considered  as  American  or  English.  ^This  was,  gentlemen,  re- 
quiring that  treaties  be  kept. 

The  Americans  answered — and  the  minister  has  just  repealed  some  of 
those  objections;  that  the  engagement  of  1803  was  contrai'y  to  the  gene- 
ral rights  of  the  Union  ;  tliat  it  was  not  possible  to  apply  particular  regu- 
lations to  any  one  of  the  States  incorporated  in  the  Genei-al  Uonfcderacv. 
The  regulation  must  be  common  to  all  the  members  of  the  Confederacy  of 
the  United  States. — To  which  it  is  easy  to  reply,  that  such  engagements 
are  regulated  by  treaties,  and  not  by  the  private  laws  of  any  people.  Now, 
here  the  engagement  results  from  the  treaty  of  1803.  This  treaty  was 
authorized  by  the  American  Legislature,  and  it  was  in  vii-tuc  of  that  au- 
thorization til  at  Jefferson  ratified  it. 

Relative  to  the  treaty  of  1814,  with  England,  the  minister  says  there  is 
this  difference  to  be  observed,  that  the  English  had  consented  to  a  recipro- 
city in  such  way  that  this  reciprocity  is  considered  by  the  minister  as  the 
price  of  the  concession  made  to  blngland,  to  be  treated  on  a  national  foot- 
ing in  the  ports  of  the  Union.  Have  wc  not  a  well-founded  claim  to  the 
same  advantage  in  virtue  of  article  8  of  the  treaty  of  1803  ?  JIave  we  not 
already  paid  for  this  treatment  by  the  cession  of  Louisiana  ?  It  is  the  sur- 
render of  that  colony  which  gives  us  the  right  to  be  treated  in  the  United 
States  as  the  most  favored  nation ;  a  right  equivalent  to  a  stipulation  of 
eighty  millions. 

Thus,  we  have  paid  by  the  treaty  of  1803  for  the  treatment  which  we 
shou^J  receive  now,  as  the  English  have  paid  in  the  treaty  of  18 14,  by  the 
reciurocity  to  which  they  agreed  w  ith  the  American  Government.     I,  there- 


502  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

fore,  can  see  no  reason  why  the  United  States  should  disavow  the  obliga- 
tions resulting  from  tlie  treaty  of  1803  in  our  favor. 

Such,  however,  has  been  the  question  during  the  space  of  seven  or  eight 
years.  The  United  States  demanding  some  settlement,  and  France  say- 
ing, ''treat  us  conformably  with  treaties,  in  a  manner  as  favorable  as 
you  treat  England." 

.In  1822,  a  tieaty  of  commerce  was  formed.  The  negotiations  were 
conducted  between  M.  Hyde  de  Neuville,  on  the  part  of  France,  with  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  Every  (juestion  was  discussed  in  this 
correspondence,  which  is  very  voluminous,  and  is  printed.  We  there  see 
that  the  envoy  of  France,  in  regulating  the  conditions  of  the  treaty  of 
commerce,  reserves  all  the  rights  resulting  from  the  treaty  of  1803  ;  and 
in  a  correspondence  which  continued  from  the  15th  December,  1817,  to 
the  date  of  the  signature  of  the  treaty,  viz.  to  the  22d  June,  1822,  in  every 
note  wliich  passed  between  the  President  or  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States,  and  tlie  envoy  of  France,  allusion  is  made  to  the  treaty  of 
1803  ;  but  I  do  not  discover  a  single  instance  in  which  the  American  Go- 
vernment thought  proper  to  mention  the  indemnification  now  demanded. 

You  are  told  that  the  United  States,  in  their  silence,  had  consideration 
for  the  financial  position  of  France,  after  the  payment  of  indemnification  by 
it  to  every  Power.  I  admit  the  claims  were  not  formally  discussed  between 
the  Governments ;  but  it  is  very  remarkable  that  when  France  had  her 
envoy  in  the  United  States,  when  that  envoy  discussed  every  question  of 
the  treaty  of  commerce,  and  made  reservations  on  the  subject  of  the  8th 
article  of  the  treaty  of  1803,  I  am  forcibly  struck  with  the  fact,  that  in  this 
treaty  the  question  of  the  indemnification  now  demanded  v»'as  never  once 
raised. 

In  fine,  gentlemen,  in  1822  the  treaty  of  commerce  was  assented  to  :  the 
Americans,  through  the  different  changes  of  ministry,  continued  succes- 
sively to  address  notes  to  the  Cabinet,  to  recall  to  mind  that  there  were 
questions  in  dispute. 

In  fact,  I  can  easily  conceive  that  the  United  States  (which  nation  has 
always  been  discontented  with  the  clause  of  the  treaty  of  1803,  establishing 
a  difference  in  French  commerce  between  Louisiana  and  the  other  States 
of  the  Union)  should  have  been  incessantly  engaged  in  raising  claims,  and 
seeking  questions  proper  to  bring  about  a  definitive  settlement  of  that 
question  so  onerous  and  so  embarrassing,  lesulting  from  the  8th  article. 
In  order  to  have  justice  done  to  one  of  these  claims,  a  special  commission 
was  formed  in  1830,  a  commission  which  was  composed  of  several  persons 
who  had  been  members  of  this  Assembly,  and  whose  chairman  I  believe 
was  M.  Hely  d'Oissel. 

[Manymembers — *'No,  M.  Pichon  was  the  chairman."] 

M.  Hely  d'Oissel  also  made  a  report. 

That  commission  was  of  opinion  that,  considering  the  fact  of  there  being 
grievances  on  each  side,  there  was  no  indemnification  to  be  made  to  the 
United  States  ;  not  on  account  of.  the  ill-advised  argument,  that  Govern- 
ments ought  not  to  answer  for  the  acts  of  Governments  which  have  pre- 
ceded them,  but  for  diplomatic  reasons  which  I  have  already  shown,  viz. 
that  the  United  States  had  taken  advantage  of  events  ;  that  the  loss  had 
been  on  our  side  ;  and  on  the  strength  of  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1803, 
they  refused  indemnification. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  503 

The  revolution  of  July  takes  place.  The  United  States  repeat  their 
applications,  and  the  question  of  indemnification  finds  zealous  advocates. 
Among  others  there  was  a  celebrated  personage  in  France,  [Gen.  Lafa- 
yette,] who  was  animated  by  strong  sentiments  of  affection,  and  by  the 
remembrance  of  a  glorious  patronage  by  the  United  States.  He  became 
the  protector  of  the  claim,  he  is  named  a  member  of  the  commission  ;  this 
commission  is  composed  of  six  members,  among  whom  are  fuund  the  honor- 
able deputy  I  have  indicated,  and  his  son — 

M.  George  Lafayette. 
1  demand  the  floor. 
M.  Berryer. 

As  well  as  four  other  membere  taken  from  this  Chamber,  or  the  other 
House.  Among  tliese  members,  two  were  of  one  opinion  ;  four  of  another ; 
and  the  result  of  the  examination  of  this  commission  was,  that  twelve  mil- 
lions ought  to  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  the  United  States. 

Do  not  expect  me  now  to  go  into  the  discussion  into  whicli  tlie  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs  entered,  or  to  the  cabinet  labors  of  tlie  Minister  of  Fo- 
reign Affairs,  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  sum  of  twenty-five  millions,  from 
the  same  basis  which  the  commission  of  1830  had  adopted,  and  from 
which  it  had  arrived  only  at  twelve  millions. 

In  relation  to  that  matter,  it  appears  to  me  that  it  has  been  completely 
settled  by  M.  Bignon.  I  have  not  tlie  necessary  documents  to  discuss  the 
merit  of  the  valuations  which  have  been  made,  but  I  observe  that  the  price 
of  27  vessels  and  their  cargoes  has  been  settled  by  approximation,  and  by 
making  an  average  of  the  vessels.  In  a  word,  notliing  can  be  more  un- 
certain and  impossible  to  justify,  than  these  estimates. 

Thus  we  rest  upon  a  calculation  completely  erroneous,  completely  false  ; 
and  we  give  twenty-five  millions,  without  any  one  of  us  being  able  to  say 
what  is  the  real  state  of  the  losses  upon  which  this  estimate  of  twenty-five 
millions  is  made. 

However  that  maybe,  I  do  not  think  the  question  of  twenty-five  millions 
is  the  most  important  one  relative  to  the  treaty  of  1831  ;  I  do  not  think 
it  should  be  considered  otherwise  than  an  accessory. 

The  principal  question,  the  interesting  question  to  come  at,  is  the  re- 
nunciation of  the  advantages  of  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1803. 
Under  this  point  of  view',  I  dispense  with  many  observations  which  I  had 
to  make,  and  will  only  reply  to  the  last  observations  of  the  minister,  con- 
vinced that  the  principal  article  is  that  which  appears  to  be  little  attended 
to  ;  I  mean  that  which  affects  the  renunciation  of  a  right  resulting  to 
France  from  the  treaty  of  1803. 

The  minister  has  told  us  that  our  right  w  as  recognised  by  the  United 
States  ;  that  they  gave  us  in  exchange  considerable  advantages,  so  much 
surpassing  all  the  advantages  of  the  treaty  of  1803,  that  it  is  nut  iK)ssible 
to  hesitate  between  the  new  and  the  old  conditions.  On  this  subject  the 
minister  has  told  us,  *'They  grant  us  a  fixed  reduced  tariff  on  all  our 
wines  which  enter  the  ports  ef  the  Union.  This  reduction  of  the  tariff 
saves  to  us  800,000  francs  per  annum,  which,  in  ten  years,  is  a  saving  of 
eight  millions.  Most  assuredly,  the  benefits  of  the  8th  article  of  the 
treaty  of  1803  would  never  procure  an  equal  advantage  to  French  com- 
merce." 


504  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 


Gentlemen,  wliat  is  tlie  consequence  of  the  abolition  of  article  8  of  llie 
treaty  of  1803  ? 

.  By  a  provision  of  the  treaty  of  1814,  confirmed,  I  believe,  by  a  treaty  of 
1828,  English  vessels  are  treated  as  American.  Our  vessels,  on  the  con- 
4rary,  in  the  ports  even  ceded  byFrance,  those  in  which  she  claims  national 
treatment — our  vessels  find  themselves  subject  to  every  duty  which  can  be 
charged  upon  the  different  products  of  foreign  commerce,  and  assimilated 
with  the  vessels  of  nations  whicli  do  not  enjoy  near  that  Government  the 
same  advantages  as  England.  Hence  the  difficulty  of  competition  for 
French  vessels. 

Wliat  says  the  minister  ?  "But  there  is  a  benefit  for  you  in  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  duty  upon  wines." 

Gentlemen,  the  reduction  which  is  spoken  of,  reduces  the  duty  from  17 
to  7i  cents  per  gallon  ;  now,  the  gallon  is  equivalent  to  four  bottles  ;  it  is 
about  two  cents  and  a  half  a  bottle  in  the  price  of  wine.  I  ask,  do  you 
believe  that  this  duty,  after  all,  is  reimbursed  by  the  consumer  ? 

[d  member  from  the  centre.     You  are  mistaken,  it  is  greater  than  that.] 

I  do  not  think  so,  however,  I  only  use  the  figures  of  the  Minister  of  Fo- 
reign Affairs.  It  is  then  a  difference  in  duty  of  two  cens  and  a  half  a 
bottle,  which  is  accorded  to  France  ;  a  duty  which  would  be  immediately 
reimbursed  by  the  constimer.  The  consumption  has  been  progressive 
during  the  last  ten  years,  and  more  so  from  1826  and  1827  to  1831 — a 
year  in  which  the  minister  has  given  us  a  much  larger  exportation  than 
in  1832.     I  do  not  know  the  amount  of  the  exportation  for  1833. 

Now  it  is  easy  to  see  that  there  is  here  some  commercial  confusion.  If 
the  difference  of  duty  was  only  such  that,  in  not  striking  it  out,  restraint 
would  be  j)iaced  upon  consumption,  I  could  understand  the  argument 
which  has  been  urged  :  but  when  it  is  so  light  that  the  consumption  can- 
not suffer  from  its  existence  or  suppression,  1  do  not  see  how  the  argument 
can  be  admitted. 

In  all  other  respects,  France  is  upon  the  footing  of  a  stranger,  whilst 
England  is  upon  a  national  footing.  The  result,  I  say,  is  an  evident  dif- 
ference against  the  commerce  of  France. 

Thus,  independent  of  the  twenty-five  millions,  which  is  an  enormous 
charge  on  the  revenue  ;  when,  in  1812,  thirteen  millions  were  considered 
sufficient;  when,  in  1830,  the  commission  formed  by  the  minister  himself, 
were  of  opinion  that  twelve  millians  only  should  be  paid,  independent  of 
this  concession,  by  v.  hicb  France  suffers,  we  have  renounced  the  rights 
secured  to  us  by  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1803,  which  renunciation 
will  be  a  considerable  loss  to  France. 

You  know  the  position  of  Louisiana  relatively  to  the  other  States  of  the 
Union.  Y"ou  know  its  fertility,  the  prosperity  of  this  magnificent  colony, 
the  increase  of  its  population.  You  know  that  New  Orleans  is  the  most 
commercial  and  most  prosperous  place  in  that  pait  of  America  ;  that  it  is 
precisely  at  a  jjointwiiere  there  is  the  most  considerable  commercial  move- 
me)it,  where  tlie  population  increases  every  day,  where  Napoleon  saw  in 
the  distance  future  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  situation  to  enable  us  t 
contend  with  all  the  nations  of  Europe ;  it  is  precisely  at  this  point  that, 
by  our  renunciation  of  the  advantages  of  the  treaty  of  1803,  we  are  about 
to  lower  our  position. 

To  this  it  has  been  answered,  that  the  Americans  can  pay  themselves 


f  Doc.  No.  2.  J  505 

in  establishing  duties  upon  French  ships,  and  tlius  the  French  merchants 
will  have  to  pay  wliat  is  now  asked  of  you  for  the  support  of  Government. 

It  is  a  bad  way  of  treating  the  question,  or  rather  it  is  another  question. 
If  we  consider  the  utility,  the  immense  advantage  to  France  in  the  stipula- 
tion of  the  act  or  tariff  which  is  in  the  treaty  of  1831,  and  are  then  told 
that  this  advantageous  condition  must  be  bought  with  twenty-five  millions, 

it  resolves  into  a  mere  custom-house  (piestion.     But  it  is  not  that we 

have  to  pronounce  on  a  question  of  riglit,  of  reason,  and  of  equity  :  are 
we  or  are  we  not  the  debtors  ?  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  question  is  to 
know  whether  the  tariff  will  be  so  useful  as  to  be  worth  the  sacrifice  of 
twenty-five  millions  to  buy  it,  we  shall  know  the  ground  upon  which  we 
are  deliberating.  But  when  we  are  told,  "Pay  twenty-five  millions  be- 
cause you  owe  them,"  it  is  another  matter. 

As  for  what  has  been  told  us,  drawn  from  considerations  of  public  order, 
of  commercial  advantages,  of  increased  exportation,  to  the  extent  (hat  the 
commercial  embarrassments  of  our  cities  ai-e  immediately  to  cease:  that 
there  will  even  be  a  saving  in  the  expenses  of  the  Gendarmerie,  I  avow  I 
do  not  understand  such  reasons.  It  is  not  by  giving  money  to  the  Ameri- 
cans that  Gavernment  will  ensure  the  repose  of  F'rance. 

M.  George  Laeayette. 

Having  been  designated  by  name  by  the  orator  who  has  just  descended 
from  the  tribune,  I  thought  I  ought  to  explain  a  fact  wliich  he  has  incor- 
rectly stated.  I  shall  certainly  not  undertake  to  defend  tlie  commission 
of  which  I  was  a  member,  from  the  accusation  brought  against  it,  that  it 
was  under  the  influence  of  any  one,  while  it  was  charged  with  the  delibe- 
ration and  examination  of  an  impoi'tant  subject  ,•  but  I  ought  to  rectify  an 
error.  It  was  said,  if  I  lieard  correctly,  that  my  father  and  I  were  asso- 
ciated on  the  commission  ;  my  father  was  not  on  it,  and  as  for  myself,  I 
cannot  pretend  to  have  exercised  any  influence  over  the  commission,  since 
ray  opinions  did  not  prevail  with  the  majority.  In  fact.  I  was  in  the  mi- 
nority of  the  commission,  and  was  convinced  that  there  was  due  to  the 
United  States  a  sum  infinitely  greater  than  the  commission  accorded  to 
them.    [.S'ojjie  applause.] 

Tuesday,  >9prU  1,  1834. 
M.  DE  Lamartine. 

Gentlemen  :  The  discussion,  as  it  was  yesterday  left,  seemed  to  me  to 
be  no  longer  one  of  political  right,  but  rather  one  of  political  exi)cdiency 
and  national  good  faitlu  Therefore,  from  a  wish  not  to  trespass,  at  this 
time,  too  far  on  the  patience  of  the  Chamber,  I  shall  view  it  in  the  latter 
light. 

The  old  maxim,  ''honesty  is  the  best  policy,"  applies  with  even  more 
truth  to  affairs  of  a  public,  than  to  those  of  a  private  nature:  to  the  acts 
of  nations,  than  to  tliose  of  individuals.  To  the  latter,  the  infj'ingement 
of  it  is  sure  to  prove  a  loss  of  time  and  of  treasure;  to  the  former,  not  of 
time  and  of  treasure  only,  but  of  honor*,  of  credit  and  of  blood. 

Let  us  remember  this,  gentlemen,  at  the  close  of  a  debate,  during  which  I 
have  with  pain  seen  one,  wliose  word  is  of  so  much  authority  with  you,  striv- 
ing to  draw  you  into  the  labyrinths  of  an  intricate  diplomacy,  instead  of  the 
plain,  straightibrward  course  of  a  policy  true  to  its  engagements,  and  to 
the  great  interests  of  commerce  and  alliance;  considerations  which  fought, 
in  my  o]>inion,  to  determine  this  whole  question.  Permit  me  to  reduce  it,. 
33 


606  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

in  a  few  words,  to  its  proper  limits.  1  regret  the  necessity  of  being  com- 
pelled to  oppose,  in  any  way,  the  able  and  judicious  statement  of  the  ques- 
tion ycstei'day  nia(!e  by  the  honoiable  M.  Bi|^n(»n  ;  but  I  do  not  wish  that 
certain  ])rinciph'H  therein  advanced,  j)rincij)les  opposed  to  the  pledges  and 
l!ie  interests  oi'  oui-  coniuieicial,  ajid  to  the  honor  of  our  moral  policy, 
should  be  given  out  from  this  tribune,  and  in  the  presence  of  these  repre- 
sentatives, without  reply  and  without  remonstrance.  The  hwnorable  gen- 
tleman has,  it  seems  to  me,  reduced  us  to  the  old  diplomacy  of  the  Empire. 
Genllcmcn,  he  mistakes  the  times.  I  admii-e,  gentlemen,  every  thing 
relating  to  the  Ein})ire,  from  ihe  Code  CivUe  to  the  column  of  the 
Pkice  Vendome ;  from  tlie  victories  of  Italy  to  tlie  gloi-ious  defeat  of  Wa- 
terloo— every  thing  except  its  moral>^,  its  liberty,  and  its  diplomacy  j 
the  im])erial  diplomacy  w  as  nothing  but  brutal  force  under  the  mask  of 
absurd  ceremonial,  disguised  by  a  few  conventional  forms  of  im.perious 
politeness.  The  sole  neg<iliator  was  the  sabre;  some  Berlin  or  Milan 
decree  was  daily  anuouiicing  some  new  princi})le  of  public  right  ;  and 
uliencver  the  orders  of  the  wujkl's  n)aster  were  not  promj)tly  obejed  by 
foreign  Cabinets,  an  agent  of  the  jjolice,  barked  by  an  armed  detachment, 
forced  the  door,  tore  uj)  tise  pi-otoculn.  and  cari-ied  off  a  Pope  from  the 
Vatican,  or  a  King  from  Madrid  or  Baji  onne,  and  there  was  an  end  of 
the  negotiation. 

Nothing  but  the  recollections  of  this  period  could  have  induced  gentle- 
men to  utter  a  maxim  so  disdainful,  and  especially  so  strange  in  the  his- 
tory of  diplonjacy  as  that  France  exists  of  herself,  and  needs  not  the  sanc- 
tions oj  other  Foxvers.  Of  what,  gentlemen,  does  the  individuality  of  a 
nation  consist,  if  not  in  the  consciousness  of  its  existence  and  of  its  rights 
as  a  member  of  the  great  family  of  nations  ?  Jf  not  in  its  relations  of 
amity  and  alliance  with  co-existing  nations?  Of  what  use  to  them  are 
their  policy,  their  negotiations,  their  treaties,  their  alliances,  oflfensive  and 
defensive,  their  diplomacy,  their  Ministers  of  Foreign  Affairs5 — in  a  word, 
their  whole  external  existence,  if  not  to  establish,  to  sustain,  and  to 
strengthen  these  relations  and  these  necessary  dependencies  among  all  the 
nations  of  Europe?  What  nation  is  it  which  exists  like  the  Deity,  inde- 
pendent of  all  relations  with  olhers  ?  Such  maxims,  gentlemen,  might,  on 
the  eve  of  a  battle,  sound  well  in  the  mouth  of  a  soldier;  but  I  am  aston- 
ished to  hear  them  gj'avely  avowed  in  an  assembly  of  legislators.  We 
cannot  too  highly  estisnate  the  value  of  alliances  ;  tliey  involve  the  future 
destiny  of  nations. 

It  was  with  no  less  pain  I  hoaid  tho  same  gentleman  declare  that 
generosity  was  not  a  virtue  of  Cabinets,  and  recommend  as  a  rule  of  na- 
tional conduct  the  mercantile  policy,  which  looks  not  to  the  right,  but  the 
fact;  which  regards  not  what  is  just,  but  what  is  expedient;  which  takes 
advantage  of  opportunity  and  of  weakness,  to  advance  its  claims  or  put 
off  its  engagements  ;  and  whose  avowed  and  sole  moral  rule  is,  that  dex- 
terity ensures  success. 

No  !  gentlemen  ;  this  should  not  be  a  rule  for  the  conduct  either  of  indivi- 
duals, or  of  Governments.  We  are  bound  to  tell  them  what  is  true;  the  same 
moral  code,  the  same  sense  of  justice,  the  same  elevation  of  feeling,  which 
should  regulate  the  relations  of  individuals,  and  which  ever  triumphs  over 
meie  address,  should  also  regulate  those  of  nations.  We  are  bound  to  say  to 
them  not — you  will  prosper  if  you  use  adJjess  ;  but — you  will  prosper,  if 
you  are  just,  if  you  are  grateful,  if  you  adhere  in  prosperity  to  the  promi- 
ses made  in  adversity  ;  if  you  keep  your  word  ;  if  you  pay  your  debts  ;  if 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  507 

you  manifest  in  your  relations  with  your  allies  not  the  narrow,  vulgar, 
and  selfish  views  which  cliaracterize  a  community  of  traders,  but  the 
magnanimity  of  conduct,  the  elevation  of  thought,  and  the  readiness  to  do 
justice,  which  become  a  great  people,  and  which  are  the  inborn  traits  and 
virtues  of  the  French  nation. 

We  are  bound  to  say — follow  the  example  yourselves  have  set.  France, 
crushed  in  1814  by  the  weight  of  all  Europe,  bargained  with  no  one; 
right  or  wrong,  she  has  paid  all  Europe  ;  she  has  put  the  seal  to  her  glory; 
she  has  paid  to  other  nations  all  she  owed  them  ;  all — even  for  the  fields  of 
battle  whereon  she  had  vanquished  them  ;  and  her  very  credit  has  been 
the  offspring  of  her  distress ;  her  fidelity  has  been  the  mother  of  her 
riches ;  and  the  faith  and  the  friendship  of  nations  have  rendered  to  her 
a  hundred-fold  the  interest  of  her  generosity.  France  is  at  this  day  the 
treasurer,  andperhaps  the  arbitress  of  Europe. 

I  shall  not  weary  tiie  Chamber  with  an  analysis  of  the  grounds  of  these 
claims.  You  yesterday  heard  M.  Realier  Duuias,  and  the  proofs  of  their 
correctness  which  he  presented  to  the  Cliambcr  in  the  name  of  the  com- 
mittee leave  notliiiig  on  this  head  to  be  added  or  replied  to.  1  should  be 
happy,  likewise,  to  recall  the  clear  and  conscientious  statement  of  the  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Affairs,  but  for  S'jme  political  assertions,  which  I  can 
neither  palliate  nor  approve.     But  I  defend  the  tieaty,  not  the  ministry. 

I  have  something  to  say  in  reply  to  the  gentleinan   (M.  Berryer)   who 
closed  the  debate  of  yesterday.     His  words,  I  confess,   made  as  strotig  aa 
impression  on  me  as  they  did  on  the  Chamber.     But  eloquent,  ingenious, 
and  powerful  as  he  is,  in  order  to  op[)ose  tiie  treaty,  he  was  forced  to  leave 
the  question  actually  before  us.      He  itidecd  transferred  t!ie  question  en- 
tirely to  the  Louisiana  affiir,   and  the  stipulations  arising  out  of  it.     He 
has  told  the  Chamber  that,  by  the  non-execution  of  the  treaty  of  1803,  by 
which  Louisiana  was  ceded,  the  United  States  had  paid  themselves  in  ad- 
vance.    Here,  gentlemen,  is  the  error.     The  treaty  of   1803  could   not, 
from  its  very  nature,  provide  beforehand  for  tiie  renuiiciation  of  indemni^ 
fication  due  for  losses  which  might  be  sustained  hereafter.     It  could  not 
provide  for  captures  and  the  destruction  of  vessels  by  fire  at  sea,  during 
a  war  the  lengtii  of  which  it  could  not  foresee,  a  war  which  lasted  ten 
years,  and   might  have  lasted  twenty  more.     It  could  not  renounce,  in 
1803,    claims  for  losses  of  subsequent  yearly  occurrence — losses  which 
could  neither  be  ascertained  nor  proved  till  1814.     The  benefits  which 
the  United  States   might  indirectly  derive  from  the  non-execution  of  the 
treaty,  could  not  affect  the  rights  in  question.      'Ihe  claim  for  indera-; 
nification  remained  entire.     But  as  far  as  respects  proper  feelings,  audi 
that  delicacy  which  should  be  shown  by  one  nation  to  another,  the  sen- 
timents of  M.   Berryer  accord  perfectly  .with  my  own.     In  reading  the 
histoiy  of  latter  times,  I  have  ever  been  astonished  at  the  small  degree  of 
sympatliy  and  gratitude  shown  us  by  the  Americans.     I  have  been  even 
pained  to  observe  witli  what  indifference  they  regarded  the  fate  of  Louis 
XVI ;  with  what  apatljy  they  gazed,  as  it  were,  on  the  scaffold  of  their 
royal  liberator.     But  the  object  of  tiie  treaty  in  question  is  not  the  exac- 
tion of  national  gi'atitude  ;  and,  if  America  has  at  times  forgotten  our, 
services,  it  is  no  argument,  gentlemen,  in  favor  of  our  forgetting  our  debts. 
I  have  read,  you  have  all  read,  a  line  which  France  may  repeat  with  pride—*. 
"  II  est  beau,  il  est  grand  de  faire  des  ingrats." 


^08  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

It  is  glorious  to  afford  opportunities  for  the  display  of  ingratitude  ire 
others,  but  I  have  never  read  that  it  was  glorious  to  be  ungrateful. 

T1)C  same  gentleman  has  told  you  that  the  Government  of  the  Restora- 
tion never  recognised  the  justice  of  this  debt,  or  of  these  claims  for  indem- 
nification.    My  reply  is  in  his  own  words.     He  has  told  you  that  M.  de 
Richelieu  had  officially  admitted  the  principle  in  his  correspondence  as 
President  of  the  Council.     To  one  acquainted  with  the  scrupulous  honesty 
jf  M.  de  Richelieu  as  a  politician,  his  word  has  the  force  of  a  treaty.   He 
would  never,  in  this  instance,  have  given  his  w^ord,  had  not  the  debt  been 
:onscientiously  admitted  by  liim  as  a  statesman,  and  intentionally,  if  not 
verbally,  admitted  by  his  Government.     I  certainly  will  not  cast  upon  the 
liplomacy  of  the  Restoration  the  reproaches  due  to  that  of  the  Empire, 
rfje  financial  policy  of  the  former  won  confidence  by  the  force  of  its  own 
jood  faith.     I  shall  never  believe  that  a  Government  which  paid  all  that 
yas  justly  due,  which,  without  distinction,  satisfied   indiscriminately  all 
he  demands  of  the  past,  and  of  Europe  the  armed  enemy   of  France, 
vould  have  withheld  from  America  the  acknowledgement  of  a  debt  which, 
rom  motives  of  honesty,  of  friendship,  of  gratitude  and  of  honor,  it  was 
lound  to  pay.     The  debt  remains  entire  ;  but  when  the  thing  has  been, 
or  fifteen  years,  debated  between  the  two  Governments,  and  by  different 
legotiators  referred  to  arbitration,  and  this  arbitration  verified  by  three 
legislatures,  through  their  committees  ;  when,  in  short,  the  only  man  liv- 
ng,  to  whom  neither  France  nor  America  can  object,  General  Lafayette, 
las  himself  told  you  tiiat  this  is  justly  a  debt  of  thirty  millions,  do  you 
efuse  twenty-five  ?  That  we  may,  if  we  choose,  by  trick  and  demur,  re- 
luce  it  to  a  less  amount,  and  strike  off  a  couple  of  millions,  I  shall  neither 
;rant  nor  deny  ,•  but  that  is  not  the  question.     The  exports  to  the  United 
•tates,  from  Lyons  and  Bourdeaux  alone,  thanks  to  the  reduction  of  duties 
ecured  by  the  treaty,  are  valued  at  eiglity  millions.     You  lose,  then,  by 
rick  and  delay,  the  means  of  recovering  from  thie  United  States  a  hun- 
red  times  more  than  you  give.     You  do  France  an  injury,  an  immense 
ijury,  for  the  sake  of  a  few  petty  pretensions  to  self-respect,  and  the  ex- 
rcise  of  a  little  diplomatic  skill.     M.  Bignon  has  told  you  that  he  thinks 
A^elve  millions  will  suffice  ;  that  he  thinks  too  well  of  the  American  Go- 
ernment  to  believe  that  it  will  use  its  rights,  and,  virtually,  restore  the 
uties  ;  but  has  the  honorable  gentleman  any  grounds  for  his  belief  ?    Shall 
e,  in  this  way,  hazard  on  an  individual  opinion,  to  whatever  respect  it 
lay  be  entitled,  the  prosperity  of  France  ;  the  commerce,  the  industry, 
Pour  two  largest  manufacturing  cities  ?     What  shall  we  say  to  our  con- 
;ituents,  gentlemen,  if,  in  three  months'  time,  we  should  learn  that  the 
uties  are  restored  ;  that  our  ships  are  excluded  from  the  American  ports  ; 
lat  our  silks  and  our  wines  are  no  longer  admitted  ;  that  the  looms  of 
yons  are  idle — [Tnterruptlon.] 
A  Member.— That  is  not  the  question. 
M.  Sebastiani. 

Pardon  me ;  it  is  the  true  question. 
M.  DE  Lamartine. 

at  the  vessels  of  Bourdeaux  are  dismantled  ;  that  nothing  bwt  bankruptcy, 
e  inevitable  consequence  of  disappointed  expectations,  and  the  sudden 
ispension  of  an  immense  trade,  is  heard  of  in  eur  maritime  towns  r  Will 
e  solitary  opinion  of  a  member  of  this  Chamber  suffice  as  an  excuse  for 
e  assumption  of  so  enormous  a  responsibility  ?   No,  gentlemen  ;  in  ques- 


r  Doc.  No.  2.  J  509 

tions  of  this  magnitude,  Government  and  Opposition,  majority  and  minori- 
ty, are  words  without  meaning  :  wc  act  for  France,  and  for  France  only. 
Its  honor,  and  its  interest,  are  to  he  consulted,  and  those  only.  Once  more, 
then,  let  us  renounce  all  recollection  of  the  imperial  policy  ;  it  no  longer 
accords  with  the  present  state  of  things.  There  is  a  diplomacy  which  ne- 
gotiates with  the  cannon,  which  holds  its  Congress  on  the  field  of  battle, 
whose  protocols  are  victory  and  defeat ;  a  diplomacy  which  sports  with 
public  morals,  recognises  no  riglit  hut  address  or  force,  and  proclaims— 
wo  to  the  vanquished  :  that  species  of  diplomacy  leads  to  Moscow, 
and  ends  at  Waterloo  j  it  gives  nothing  hut  military  glory,  trophies 
of  victory,  and  the  enmity  and  the  curses  of  nations.  There  is  another 
which  respects  the  rights  of  others,  that  they  may  be  induced  to  respect 
its  own;  which  has  no  arms  but  those  of  justice  ;  the  sole  appeal  of  which 
is  to  its  own  rigiit,  and  to  the  conscience  of  Europe.  Such  diplomacy  in- 
spires nations  with  mutual  confidence  and  good  will,  makes  the  moral  law 
the  universal  law,  forms  friendships  and  alliances,  and  establishes  the 
wealth  of  a  people,  its  credit,  and  its  future  prosperity.  I  fear  not  to  re- 
commend it  to  France,  and  I  consider  the  whole  subject  as  embraced  in  i 
few  short  questions,  to  which  I  shall  myself  respond. 

Are  we  in  debt  to  the  United  States  ?  Yes  ;  no  person  here  disputes  it.' 

To  the  amount  of  twenty-five  millions  ?  Yes;  since  this  debt,  debated 
contested,  reduced,  submitted  to  arbitration,  verified  by  Governments,  ant 
by  different  negotiators,  and  by  General  Lafayette  himself,  has  been  fixe(' 
at  that  amount. 

Ought  we,  for  the  sake  of  a  reduction  of  this  debt  which  may  or  maj 
not  be  made  to  jeopard  the  interests  of  Lyons  and  Bourdeaux,  our  sill 
trade,  our  vineyards,  our  industry,  our  commerce,  and  our  whole  mercan 
tile  marine  ?  No  ;  for  the  sake  of  the  mere  chance  of  saving  two  or  thret 
millions,  we  should  lose  hundreds  of  millions,  and  destroy  our  friendly  re 
lations  with  the  United  States. 

Finally,  gentlemen,  comes  the  most  important  question  of  all. 

Would  it  be  an  act  of  justice,  of  honor,  of  delicacy,  in  us,  who,  in  1815 
paid  a  thousand  millions  to  Europe  our  enemy,  with  the  bayonet  at  ou 
throats,  longer  to  hesitate  to  indemnify  America,  which  alone  remainei 
faithful  to  us,  and  alone  refused  to  take  advantage  of  our  distress,  to  exac 
reimbursement  ?  No,  gentlemen  ;  such  a  course  of  proceeding  would  no 
only  do  violence  to  our  interests,  but  to  our  feelings. 

Considerations  of  our  real  interests,  of  honor,  of  faith,  of  credit,  of  na 
tional  gratitude,  all  resolve  themselves  into,  all  are  involved  in,  the  fat 
of  the  treaty.     I  vote  for  the  treaty  and  for  the  bill. 

M.  DupouY. 

Are  Governments  less  amenable  than  individuals  to  the  rules  of  equity 
I  think  not.  It  is  not,  then,  the  princijde  of  tlic  indemnification  that 
shall  contest,  for  I  acknowledge  its  justice  ;  I  do  not  inquire  whether  tl 
United  States  have  claimed  and  obtained  for  the  same  causes,  or  on  an 
ground  whatever,  indemnification  elsewhere:  good  faith  docs  not  seek  i' 
conviction  in  the  consciences  of  others. 

Notwithstanding  the  explanations  given  yesterday  by  the  Minister  i 
Foreign  Affairs,  I  have  some  doubts  respecting  tlie  estimate  of  the  inden  i 
nification :  I  ask  permission  of  the  Chamber  to  submit  to  it  my  remarks 
they  are  drawn  from  considerations  purely  commercial. 

It  was  rightly  intended  to  limit  the  indemnification  strictly  to  the  rep 


510  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

Tation  of  damages — to  the  simple  restitution  of  the  actual  loss;  in  the  same 
I   "Way  that  rcimhurscment  is  made  by  underwriters  in  case  of  accidents  at 

I   sea,  >vithout  taking  into  consideration  the  profits  of  the  operation. 

I       Your  conin)ittee,  gentlemen,  liaving  remarked  that  the  sales  at  Bayonne 

I  liad  produced  less,  by  two-fifths,  than  those  at  Antwerp;  and  then  that  the 
custom-house  duties  at  Bayonne  exceeded  the  value  of  the  cargoes,  these 

,  same  duties  being  deducted,  it  would  seem  that  it  has  inferred  from  these 
two  circumstances,  that  the  sums  realized  at  Bayonne  were  only  equal  to 

,  the  first  cost  of  the  commodities.     It  has  determined,  for  this  reason,  to 
permit  the  entry  of  the  proceeds  of  the  thirty  Jive  cargoes  sold  at  BayonnCf 
exclusive  of  custom-house  duties,  as  one  of  the  principal  items  of  the  estimate. 
1  perceive  an  error  in  this. 

;  At  that  time,  so  fruitful  in  extraordinary  events,  in  which  the  violence 
of  the  struggle  between  two  great  nations  caused  the  maritime  laws  of 

,  nations  to  be  forgotten,  and  erased  the  clause  in  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  whicli 
guarantied  the  independence  of  the  neutral  flag — at  that  time  the  commodi- 

I  dities  of  tropical   countries  reached  Europe  only  through  a  thousand  diffi- 

;  culties,  and  in  quantities  insufficient  to  supply  the  demands  for  consump- 

1  tion;  they  lost  in  the  places  of  production  the  greater  part  of  their  market 
value,  whilst  their  value  in  Europe  was  augmented  in  a  surprising  degree. 

,      These  circumstances  combined   to  excite  the  speculating  and  adventu- 

I  reus  spirit  of  the  Americans  to  the  highest  pitch,  and  allowed  them  to 
realize  many  fortunes  in  this  w  ay.     On  the  other  hand,  the  custom-house 

I  duties,  wherever  the  dominion  of  France  was  extended,  might  be  raised 

;  much   beyond  the  first  cost  of  the  article  in  the  colonies,  without  affecting 

1  the  selling  price  in  Europe,  more  sensibly  than  the  duties  at  this  day  affect 

,  the  existing  prices. 

1  Thus,  though  the  cargoes  sold  at  Bs^yonne,  deducting  the  duties,  may 
have  produced  only  forty-seven  per  cent,  of  the  gross  amount  of  the  sale, 
yet  this  fraction  might,  nevertheless,  represent  a  sum  greater  than  the  first 

I  cost. 

I      For  the  want  of  documents  I  can  neither  obtain,  nor  present  mathematical 
proof  of  this  assertion;  but  tiie  fact  cited  by  the  committee  in  its  report, 
viz.  that  the  commission  appointed   in   1831  to  estimate  the  indemnifica- 
tion had  fixed  it  at  13,747,000  francs,  reduced  to  round  numbers,  twelve 
1  |millions,  value  at  the  port  cf  departure,  is  equivalent,  in  my  judgment,  to  a 

idemonstration. 

The  committee  of  1834havingadopted  the  classes  admitted  by  thecommis- 
ision  of  1831,  it  must  be  perceived  that  the  difference  in  the  estimates  arises 
from  the  mode  of  valuing  the  articles.  But  I  must  acknowledge  that  the 
explanations  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  have  not  enlightened  mo 
on  this  subject.  There  is  some  error  or  perplexity,  on  his  part,  in  regard 
to  the  custom-house  duties. 

Instead  of  proceeding  by  inductions,  as  the  committee  of  1834  seems  to 
have  done,  there  is,  doubtless,  a  means  of  verifying  the  amount  of  the  in- 
demnification as  regards  the  cargoes,  w  ith  more  exactness  ;  it  is  to  consult 
the  prices  current  of  the  foreign  ports  whence  the  shipments  were  made, 
at  their  respective  dates.  Tlie  capacity  of  the  vessels,  and  the  nature  of 
the  lading,  should  also  necessarily  enter  into  the  calculations ;  Ami,  very 
probably  this  may  still  be  found. 

The  revision  of  this  part  of  the  labors  of  the  committee  appears  to  me 
ndispensable.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  too  honorable  to 
•efuse  its  assent,  because  it  would  not  wish  to  profit  by  an  error. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  511 

I  am  but  little  moved,  gentlemen,  by  any  of  tbe  considerations  at  vari- 
ance with  tbe  strict  rules  of  honesty  which  have  been  alleged  in  favor  of  the 
sum  set  down  in  tbe  treaty.  TIic  Clianiber  ouglit,  in  tbe  first  place,  to  exa- 
mine whether  the  twenty-five  millions  arc  legitimately  due.  As  to  the  second- 
ary question — commercial  relations,  they  are  c.st;iblis!ied  between  nations 
in  consequence  of  reciprocal  advantages;  and  tiieseadxantagcs  should  not  be 
bougl'.t  either  with  gold,  or  at  tbe  expense  of  the  national  dignity.  Besides, 
would  it  not  becalumniating  the  character  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  to  suppose  it  accessible  to  feelings  of  cupidity,  and  to  resentments 
unworthy  of  a  great  people,  in  regard  to  a  discussion  of  interest,  in  which, 
on  both  sides,  tbe  strict  correctness  of  the  amount  is  honestly  sought  ? 

I  conclude,  then,  that  tbe  discussion  of  tbe  treaty  be  suspended  until  the 
committee  revise  its  labors,  and  calci'date  tbe  amount  of  the  indemnifica- 
tion, after  having  received  more  precise  notices  respecting  the  first  cost  of 
those  cargoes  for  which  it  has  been  admitted  that  the  proprietors  should 
be  indemnified.  1  will  not  descend  from  tljis  tribune  without  remarking 
that  the  principles  which  dictated  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  4th  July, 
1831,  require  perhaps  that  tbe  claims  of  tbe  old  grantees  of  the  India 
Company,  and  those  of  the  heirs  of  the  purchasers  of  a  part  of  the  territory 
of  Louisiana,  should  more  strongly  excite  tbe  solicitude  of  the  French  ne- 
gotiator; and  that,  instead  of  referring  them  to  the  tribunals  of  tbe  coun- 
try for  tbe  prosecution  of  their  rights,  the  French  Government  should  be 
charged  with  making  their  prosecution. 

If  the  Chamber  cannot  touch  this  part  of  the  treaty  without  overstepping 
its  privileges,  it  ought,  at  least,  to  invite  the  attention  of  the  ministry  to 
the  heirs  of  tbe  first  colonists  of  Louisiana. 

M.  DuCHATEL. 

After  tbe  explanations  which  are  given  in  the  report  of  the  committee, 
and  in  tbe  speech  of  tbe  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  relative  to  tbe  origin 
of  the  American  claims,  the  progress  of  the  negotiations,  and  tlie  basis  which 
served  for  a  determination,  there  lemains  no*  hi  tig  further  to  be  said  on  the 
part  of  those  who  advocate  the  bill,  either  in  respect  to  the  value  or  the 
legitimacy  of  tbe  debt  to  tbe  United  States.  It  is  upon  other  considerations 
that  I  ask  the  attention  of  the  Chamber  for  a  few  moments ;  and  altbougU 
the  discussion  is  far  advanced,  and  I  am  desirous  to  avoid  intruding  upon 
tbe  patience  of  the  Chamber,  nevertheless,  the  interests  involved  in  the 
debate  are  of  so  serious  a  character,  and  tbe  facts  which  I  have  to  submit 
so  conclusive,  that  I  should  reproach  myself  if,  wbilcoitertaining  this  con- 
viction, I  did  not  advance  the  reasons  which  have  influenced  my  opinion. 

As  I  have  said,  I  will  not  return  to  the  debt  itself;  I  will  only  pointout 
to  tbe  Chamber  the  commercial  and  political  iiiterests  which  arc  involved 
in  tbe  adoption  of  the  treaty  upon  which  we  are  now  deliberating. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  if  the  debt  were  not  established,  if  France 
owed  nothing  to  tbe  United  States,  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  appear 
asking  tbe  Chamber  for  a  grant  of  money  in  favor  of  a  custom-house  tariff, 
or  for  some  commercial  advantage.  But,  notwithstanding  what  has  been 
said  at  the  last  meeting  by  an  honorable  member,  the  defenders  of  the  bill 
are  not  reduced  to  that  alternative. 

Since  tbe  debt  is  admitted,  (and  for  my  part  I  tliink  It  fully  estjiblislied.) 
it  is  proper  to  present  every  consideiation  bearing  upon  tlie  adoption  ol  the 
treaty.  In  offering  to  tbe  Chamber  those  considerations,  I  do  not  believe  I 
shall  depart  from  the  question,  notwithstanding  what  was  said  at  the  close 
of  tbe  session  of  yesterdav. 


5 12  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

The  treaty  of  1831  has  been  made  :  in  discussing  that  treaty,  we  are  not 
limited  to  the  principles  of  justice  ;  every  argument  may  be  adduced,  whe- 
ther of  policy  or  of  interest.  Upon  this  view  of  the  question,  I  ask  per- 
mission of  the  Chamber  to  examine  the  subject  as  briefly  as  possible. 

In  the  first  place,  however,  I  wish  to  reply  to  an  argument  which  was 
advanced  at  the  first  sitting,  and  twice  brought  forward  yesterday. 

It  was  said,  without  doubt  a  debt  exists.  No  one  supposes  the  debt  can 
be  contested  ;  but  have  you  no  oifset  to  oppose  to  it  ?  The  Americans  have 
grown  rich  in  the  progress  of  that  war,  when  so  many  losses  occurred,  and 
so  much  injustice  was  committed.  The  Americans  have  profited  by  that 
war;  they  found  the  price  of  their  sacrifices  in  the  immense  advantages 
which  the  wants  of  the  war  procured  them.  "While  the  belligerents  were 
suffering  great  losses,  the  Americans  grew  rich  without  fighting  themselves; 
tiiey  reaped  the  fruits  of  tiie  victories  of  others. 

Thus,  say  tJiey,  if  you  compai'e  the  situation  of  the  United  States,  as  it 
was  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  with  what  it  was  at  the  end,  the  result  of 
this  comparison  will  show  an  enormous  increase  of  power  and  prosperity. 

And  you  would  wish,  it  has  been  added,  in  the  face  of  these  advantages, 
to  recognise  yourselves  as  debtors  to  America ;  but  in  payment  of  your 
4lebt,  you  have  already  given  them  an  increase  of  power  and  prosperity. 
Are  not  those  advantages  compensation  sufficient? 

As  for  myself,  gentlemen,  I  do  not  think  that  this  sort  of  compensation 
can  be  justly  urged.  The  reason  is  plain;  this  debt  originated  in  acts 
of  injustice  committed  when  we  were  at  peace  with  the  United  States, 
and  not  in  a  state  of  war,  whilst  the  advantages  which  the  United  States 
reaped  were  not  of  our  conferring,  but  fortuitous.  Can  we  take  this  ground 
in  a  question  ofjustice  and  equity,  and,  in  a  manner  entering  into  partner- 
ship with  fortune,  pay  our  debts  with  its  benefits  ? 

No,  gentlemen,  there  would  be  no  justice  in  that  sort  of  compensation 
resulting  from  our  acts,  or  acts  produced  by  causes  independent  of  the  will 
of  the  French  Government. 

After  having  rejilied  to  this  objection,  to  which  I  have  recalled  the  atten- 
tion of  tlie  Chamber  only  because  it  has  been  so  often  brought  forward  in 
this  debate,  w  ith  the  permission  of  the  Chamber  I  will  proceed,  as  rapidly 
and  clearly  as  possible,  to  explain  what  are  the  commercial  stipulations  of 
the  treaty  respecting  which  so  many  strange  errors  have  been  committed; 
and,  further,  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Chamber  to  the  serious  consequences 
to  w hich  a  vote  of  rejection  would  lead. 

The  commercial  stipulations  of  the  treaty  are  three  in  number  : 

1st.  The  renunciation  by  us  of  the  contested  right  founded  on  the  8tk 
article  of  the  treaty  of  1803,  relative  to  the  cession  of  Louisiana. 

2d.  Privileges  granted  to  the  French  wines  by  the  United  States,  as  an 
equivalent  for  that  renunciation. 

3d.  The  reduction  in  the  duty,  upon  our  side,  on  long  staple  cottons  ; 
an  affair  in  itself  so  trivial,  that  but  for  the  frequent  notice  taken  of  it  in 
this  discussion,  it  w:ould  claim  no  attention. 

Those  are  the  three  commercial  stipulations  which  figure  in  the  treaty 
of  1831. 

1  begin  with  the  Louisiana  question.  Much  was  said  of  it  yesterday 
from  this  tribune.  One  member  (M.  Berryer)  went  so  far  as  to  say  it  was 
the  whole  question  ;  the  chief  point  ujion  which  the  debate  turned.  He  told 
OS  that  the  £5  millions  was  a  secondary  consideratiou  with  him ;  he  ac- 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  513 

cused  the  Government  of  sacrificing  the  elements  of  tlic  future  prosperity 
and  greatness  of  France  by  renouncing  the  pri\  ilegcs  of  the  treaty  of  1803. 

It  is  only  by  facts  and  figures  tliat  such  questions  can  be  decided.  Gene- 
ral considerations  possess  a  little  too  nujch  of  theory,  and  never  lead  to 
positive  results.  We  must  caiculate  the  value  of  the  advantages  ceded  to 
the  United  States,  and  the  value  of  those  obtained  in  compensation. 

You  will  observe,  in  tlie  first  place,  that  this  right  which  we  pretend  to 
in  Louisiana — a  right  which  I  will  not  dispute;  (from  this  tribune,  and 
especially  in  doubtful  cases,  I  never  would  attack  a  right  which  might 
belong  to  my  country) — you  will  observe,  I  say,  that  it  was  not  a  right  in 
possession  fully  acquired.  It  had  been  long  disputed.  We  therefore  did 
not  cede  an  advantage  which  we  held  for  an  equivalent.  We  have  ceded, 
not  a  real  possession,  but  aground  of  litigation,  a  questionable  right, 
which  we  possessed  not  the  means  of  making  good. 

Behold  what  we  have  ceded  !  Now  let  us  see  what  we  have  acquired. 
Real  and  important  advantages,  as  I  will  presently  demonstrate. 

It  will  be  first  necessary  to  establish  the  true  character  of  the  ceded 
right,  by  calculating  its  importance  ;  in  order  to  do  so,  we  must  look  into 
the  operations  of  our  navigation  and  commerce  w  ith  Louisiana.  You  know 
the  nature  of  the  difficulty,  either  in  Louisiana  or  in  any  other  State  of 
the  Union.  There  are  no  discriminating  duties  upon  our  merchandise  ; 
those  duties  were  suppressed  in  virtue  of  the  treaty  of  1822  ;  there  remains 
only  a  tonnage  duty  of  five  francs  per  ton.  In  all  the  States  of  the  Union 
we  pay  five  francs  per  ton  tonnage  duty  more  than  American  vessels. 
Their  vessels  pay  the  same  excess  of  duty  in  our  ports. 

It  is  evident  that  the  importance  of  the  duty  depends  upon  the  extent  of 
the  navigation.  ^Yhat  is  the  amount  of  our  navigation  with  Louisiana  ? 
An  estimate  was  exhibited  yesterday  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
I  will  add,  that  the  duty  is  of  little  importance,  if  we  consider  the  sum 
total  of  it  with  all  theS'tatesof  the  Union.  If  we  take  the  mean  of  several 
years,  our  navigation  with  the  United  States  is  limited  to  thirteen  or  four- 
teen tJjousand  tons;  not  with  Louisiana  alone,  but  with  all  the  States  of  the 
Union.  The  duty,  multiplied  by  this  number,  gives  a  sum  of  sixty-five  to 
seventy  thousand  francs.  Here,  then,  is  an  annual  charge  of  sixty-five 
thousand  francs  upon  our  exportation  during  the  last  yeai',  of  one  hundred 
and  six  millions  of  francs.  From  such  a  tariff  is  it  possible  there  can  re- 
sult any  real  unfairness  ? 

But  there  is  yet  another  consideration.  Without  doubt,  we  cannot  pre- 
tend to  compete  with  the  United  States  in  the  carrying  trade;  all  that  we 
can  claim  is  a  portion  of  the  direct  trade  between  France  and  America. 
Unfortunately,  our  navigation  is  more  expensive  than  that  of  other  nations  ; 
all  pretensions,  therefore,  to  the  carrying  trade,  are  out  of  tlie  (picstion,  and 
we  can  only  enjoy  the  direct  trade  between  France  and  Louisiana.  If  we 
examine  the  state  of  navigation,  we  find  that  no  third  flag  meddles  with  this 
commerce ;  it  belongs  exclusively  to  French  and  American  vessels.  As 
there  is  no  third  flag,  I  ask  how  favors  granted  to  a  third  flag  can  have 
any  weight. 

Between  the  French  and  American  navigation,  the  conditions  are  equal; 
for  if  our  ships  pay  five  francs  more  in  the  ports  of  the  Union,  on  the  other 
side  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  pay  five  francs  more  in  our  ports.  The 
reciprocity  is  then  perfect.  We  cannot  hope  to  triumph  over  A.merican 
commerce  in  their  own  ports.     If,  tlien,  there  is  a  semblance  of  disadvan- 


514  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

tage  for  us,  it  disappears  in  reality ;  for  the  commerce  on  which  we  would 
claim  privileges,  is  reserved  entirely  to  French  and  American  vessels. 

I  ask  pardon  of  the  Chamber  fur  dwelling  upon  tliese  details  relative  to 
Louisiana;  but  as  it  is  the  point  upon  which  most  stress  has  been  laid,  I 
believed  it  my  duty  to  explain  the  matter,  more  especially  as  explanation 
was  so  easy. 

Now,  in  compensation  for  that  claim,  reduced  to  its  just  value,  what 
have  we  have  obtained  ?  A  reduction  of  vast  importance  upon  our  wines — a 
reduction  of  which  I  will  submit  a  calculation  to  the  Chamber.  This 
reduction,  it  is  true,  is  only  temporary ;  but,  because  it  is  so,  it  does  not 
follow  that  its  advantages  may  not  be  compared  with  an  advantage  that  is 
perpetual.  In  commerce,  a  temporary  annuity  maybe  exchanged  for  a 
perpetual  stock.  The  annuity  must  only  be  of  higher  value;  the  difference 
of  time  counterbalances  the  difference  of  value. 

You  shall  see  the  result  of  the  calculation.  The  duties  upon  wines,  (I 
am  obliged  to  use  figures,  but  in  so  serious  a  matter  precision  is  requi- 
site)— the  duties  upon  wines  in  the  United  States  before  the  treaty  were 
regulated  in  three  different  ways  :  a  certain  duty  was  exacted  upon  wines 
in  bottles  ;  another  duty  upon  wines  in  casks  ;  and  the  third  duty  varied  in 
its  application  to  white  or  red  wines.  The  duties  on  wines  in  bottles  were 
then  about  forty-two  francs  the  hectolitre,  for  w  ines  in  bottles  of  every  quali- 
ty ;  on  vvliite  wines  in  casks,  twenty-one  francs  the  hectolitre  ;  on  red  wines, 
fourteen  francs.  From  the  1st  February,  1832,  the  duties  were  reduced  frorai 
forty-two  to  thirty  francs,  from  twenty-one  to  fourteen  francs,  and  from 
fourteen  to  eight  francs.  This  reduction  was  important  in  itself;  but  it 
remains  to  be  added,  that  fi-om  the  3d  March,  1834,  a  further  reduction 
took  place  of  fifty  per  cent.,  on  the  last  duties,  so  that  wine  in  bottles  now 
only  pays  fifteen  francs  the  hectolitre ;  white  wines  in  casks,  seven  francs  ; 
red  wines,  four  francs. 

These  duties  are  very  moderate,  and  will  open  a  w ide  field  to  our  com- 
merce ;  and  not  only  the  duties  we  pay  are.low,  but  we  have  an  advantage  in 
the  higher  duties  paid  on  wines  of  all  other  countries.  Upon  some  qualities 
this  difference  amounts  to  six  francs ;  upon  others,  to  five  francs ;  and  on  a 
third  description,  to  three  francs. 

Estimating  by  the  cask,  instead  of  the  hectolitre,  the  diflferencc  in  our 
favor  amounts  to  sixty,  fifty,  and  thirty  francs. 

You  were  told  yesterday  that  the  renunciation  of  the  Louisiana  privi- 
lege costs  us  annually  14,000  francs,  We  shall  gain  800,000  francs, 
and  when  tiie  duty  is  reduced  one-half,  that  sum  will  be  again  doubled.  It 
is  true  we  shall  only  enjoy  it  for  ten  years ;  but  I  ask  those  acquainted 
with  financial  aff\iirs,  if  the  equivalent  is  not  obtained,  when  we  exchange 
a  perpetual  endowment  of  15,000  francs  for  an  annuity  often  years,  which 
may  amount  to  a  million,  or  a  million  and  a  half,  per  annum. 

Having  reduced  the  Louisiana  question  to  its  true  value,  I  will  now 
turn  my  attention  to  the  third  stipulation  of  the  treaty — to  that  relative  to 
cottons.  These  details  are  dry,  but  they  are  indispensable  to  the  under- 
standing of  the  treaty.      [Go  on,  go  on.] 

By  the  treaty,  long  staple  cottons  are  assimilated  with  short  staple.  An 
honorable  member  has  spoken  of  this  assimilation  as  being  an  augmentation 
of  duty.  He  was  wrong.  It  was  a  reduction.  The  duties  upon  the  long 
staple  cottons  were  reduced  to  the  same  rate  with  short  staple  cottons. 

This  is  but  a  trivial  benefit  to  the  United  States.     Commerce  had  long 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  515 

required  it.  The  bill  for  regulaling  the  custom-house  duties,  in  1829, 
proposed  the  assimilation.  The  quantity  of  lojig  staple  cottons  imported 
from  the  United  States  in  1831  amounted  to  250,000  kilogrammes.  This 
quantity,  multiplied  by  20  francs  per  100  kilogjammes,  the  amount  of  the 
reduction,  produces  a  sum  of  50,000  francs.  Behold  the  amount  of  the 
benefit  we  have  accorded  to  the  United  states.  We  had  already  granted 
the  same  to  Brazil. 

Now  that  I  come  to  the  bearing  of  the  commercial  stipulations  of  the 
treaty,  I  beg  to  call  its  attention  to  the  commercial  interests  involved  in 
the  question. 

Our  commerce  witli  the  United  States  affords  us  the  amplest  foreign 
market.  Last  year  they  received  106,000,000  of  our  merchandise.  I 
know  this  sum  exceeds  that  of  several  otiier  years,  but  I  here  present  you 
the  precise  amounts  for  a  number  of  years.  They  will  enable  the  Chamber 
to  appreciate  the  extent  of  that  commerce. 

We  exported  to  the  United  States  productions  of  our  manufactories, 
to  the  amount  of — 

In   182r,   -  -  -.  -  -  -     76,000,000 

In   1828,  -  -  -  -  -  -     66,000,000 

In    1829,   -.---.      65,000,000 
In   1830,  -      .        -  -  -  -  .     69,000,000 

In   1831,   ------   110,000,000 

In  1832,  from  various  circumstances,  tlie  cholera  and  stagnation  of 
trade,  our  exportations  fell  to  58,000,000  ;  but  they  recovered  their  level 
in  1833,  and  rose  to  106,000,000. 

The  products  we  receive  in  exchange  are  raw  materials  of  the  highest 
importance  to  our  manufactories.  Raw  cotton  is  the  principal  article ;  of 
this  we  bought,  in  1833,  to  the  value  of  51,000,000. 

The  commerce  of  which  I  speak  is  not  only  the  first  in  its  amount,  but 
promises  the  gi'eatest  extension  in  futui-e. 

The  favorable  conditions  upon  which  our  commerce  is  placed  with  the 
United  States  are  worthy  of  notice.  Their  productions  bear  no  resem- 
blance to  ours.  There  can  be  no  rivalry.  The  American  nation  is  in 
possession  of  a  soil  which  opens  to  its  industry  a  boundless  career;  its 
population  increases  every  day  ;  its  riches  augment  with  a  marvellous 
rapidity  unknown  to  any  other  nation  of  the  world,  and  which  none  other 
may  even  hope  to  equal.  It  is  this  country,  then,  which  promises  to  your 
commerce  the  most  brilliant  expectations  for  the  future  ;  it  offers  a  market 
for  our  manufactures,  which  is  every  day  enlarging. 

I  have  here  to  reply  to  two  objections. 

You  have  been  told,  in  the  first  j)lace,  that  the  measures  taken  by  the 
United  States,  bearing  upon  our  commerce,  were  by  no  means  taken  in 
consequence  of  the  treaty.  You  are  then  told,  that  whatever  may  be  the 
conduct  of  the  French  Government,  whatever  may  be  the  fate  of  tiie  treaty 
now  under  consideration,  the  United  States  will  make  no  change  in  their 
commercial  regulations. 

I  will  reply  to  these  two  points  in  succession ;  they  are  of  immense  im- 
portance in  the  question. 

Is  it  true  that  the  United  States  h^ve  not  been  governed,  in  the  modifica- 
tions of  their  tariff,  by  the  treaty  under  consideration  ?  It  is  easy  to  prove 
the  conti'ary.  You  have  seen  that  we  enjoy  a  considerable  advantage 
over  other  Powers,  in  the  duty  upon  our  wines.  Why  did  the  United 
States  subscribe  to  that  advantage,  if  it  was  not  to  favor  France  ?     And 


51G  r  Doc.  No.  2.  1  F 

wherefore  will  they  favor  France,  if  France,  in  return,  does  not  entertair 
friendly  relations  with  them ;  if  she  refuses  to  pay  a  debt  which  appears 
to  be  a  legitimate  one,  to  the  Government  of  the  Union,  and  concerning 
tlie  justice  of  which  there  is  no  doubt  ? 

It  is  not,  therefore,  as  has  been  recently  stated,  from  financial  consi- 
derations  alone  that  the  United  States  have  reduced  their  tariff.  With- 
out doubt,  the  general  reduction  which  has  been  effected  in  their  custom- 
house  duties  proceeds  from  that  hapj)y  financial  condition  so  different  from 
ours  :  but  the  reductions  which  regard  France  only,  w  hich  give  to  her  pre- 
ferences and  commercial  privileges,  must  have  been  made  with  a  view  to 
French  interests  solely,  and  not  to  those  of  America. 

It  is  the  same  in  the  case  of  silks.  The  duties  which  were  formerly 
tiiirty  per  cent,  upon  the  silks  of  China,  and  twenty  per  cent,  on  those  oil  [^' 
France,  were  reduced  at  first,  the  former  to  ten,  and  the  latter  to  five  pet 
cent.  ;  but,  in  consideration  of  the  advantages  which  they  obtained  by  the 
treaty,  America  consented  to  abolish  entirely  all  duties  upon  our  silks. 
Here,  then,  is  another  stipulation,  wholly  French,  based  upon  considera-  ) 
tions  which  concern  France  alone.  ^ 

We  now  come  to  that  view  of  the  question  which  demands  your  most' "" 
serious  deliberation.  Does  any  one  believe  that  there  is  no  danger  from  * 
the  rejection  of  the  treaty  ?  Does  any  one  believe  we  can  thus  break  with  f" 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  without  peril  ?  Can  it  be  believed!  i^' 
that  a  treaty  which  has  been  ratified,  and  upon  the  execution  of  which  the  " 
Government  and  people  of  the  United  States  count,  can  be  annulled  with-  P 
out  creating  resentment  on  the  part  of  the  Americans  ;  without  altering  ^^ 
our  commercial  relations  ?  Yet  it  has  been  so  affirmed;  but,  in  my  opi-  *' 
iiion,  he  who  affirms  it  assumes  a  heavy  responsibility.  '" 

I  know  very  well  that  mankind  never  had  a  true  interest  in  all  these  '^j 
commercial  quarrels ;  that,  if  they  were  wise,  they  would  listen  only  to  the  [■ 
dictates  of  prudence;  that  they  would   never  use  reprisals;  that  they  [ 
would  never  come  under  the  influence  of  anger  or  passion.     But  who  will ! 
venture  to  answer  that,  in  a  country  where  public  opinion  is  so  powerful ; 
where  it  influences  so  strongly  the  determinations  of  Government — who  '^'' 
will  venture  to  answer  that  it  will  be  interest  only,  the  coldest  wisdom,  and 
prudence  the  most  circumspect,  which  will  dictate  the  resolutions  of  the 
Government  and  Congress  of  the  United  States  ? 

We  are  told  that  the  United  States  will  receive  the  rejection  of  the  treaty 
of  1831  with  great  tranquillity.  To  this  hypothetical  assertion  it  is  only 
necessary  to  oppose  facts.  We  must  examine  and  see  how  the  minds  f^ 
men  are  disposed  with  regard  to  this  question  in  America.  We  have  oniy  * 
to  read  the  messages  of  the  President,  the  debates  in  Congress,  and  the 
discussions  in  the  papers  of  the  United  States.  In  the  face  of  these  facts, 
what  Is  adduced  ?  Suppositions,  vague  presumptions  founded  upon  the 
prudence  of  Government — upon  the  wisdom  ef  men  !  But,  in  truth,  gentle- 
men, for  a  long  time  we  have  seen  other  motives  than  reason  or  interest 
governing  the  events  of  the  world.  Interests,  passions,  and  national  sus- 
ceptibilities have  long  been  exerting  much  influence  in  political  affairs. 

During  the  two  years  since  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  has  there  not 
been  so  strong  an  excitement  in  the  United  States,  has  not  the  subject  been 
engrossing  the  public  mind  so  far,  that  M.  Bignon,  who  spoke  most  forci- 
bly  against  the  treaty,  has  told  you  that,  although  he  would  not  accept  it,  '* 
jet  he  acknowledged  that  there  might  be  sufficient  reasons  with  many 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  Sir 

lersons  for  adopting  the  treaty  ?  He  even  added  that  the  delay  alone  had 
)een  a  species  of  moral  violence  committed  upon  the  Chamber.  For  my 
)wn  part,  I  do  not  admit  this  moral  violence;  but  I  acknowledge  that  a 
question  becomes  different  when,  from  being  simply  tlie  claim  of  individu- 
ils,  it  arises  to  be  that  of  a  Government.  Before  the  treaty,  there  were 
ndividual  claims  advocated  by  the  American  Government,  and  for  the 
ate  of  which  the  Government  of  the  Union  was  interested,  without,  how- 
!ver,  inducing  any  decided  steps  in  behalf  of  the  claimants  ;  but  since  the 
jreaty,  it  has  become  a  Government  question — a  national  affair. 

I  do  not  say  that  your  prerogative  is  not  entire ;  I  only  ^ay  in  this  re- 
pect,  adopting  the  opinion  of  the  honorable  M.  Bignon,  tiiat  tliere  is  some- 
hing  more  at  stake  since  the  treaty  than  there  was  before. 

Who,   then,    will   take   upon   himself  the   responsibility   to  guaranty 

jjhat  the  United  States  will  use  no  species  of  retaliatien  if  the  treaty  be  re- 

iflected  ;  that  they  will  employ  no  means  to  recover  the  debt  ?    Seeing  tiiat 

he  principle  of  the  debt  is  not  contested,  that  positive  calculations  were 

lade  to  determine  the  amount,  and  that  no  opposite  calculation  has  been 

roduced,  no  offset  against  the  United  States,  will  not  that  Government 

ij-oceed  to  pay  itself  from  the  means  in  its  power  ? 

Gentlemen,  nothing  can  be  easier ;  our  commerce  with  them  last  year 

s|mounted  to  one  hundred  and  six  millions.     Now  do  you  think  there  will 

jiie  any  difficulty  in  establishing,  instantaneously,   discriminating  duties 

f  pon  our  goods,  to  compensate  and  exceed  the  twenty-five  millions  we  owe 

Jiem  ?    This  discriminating  duty  will  not  be  paid  by  the  consumers  in  the 

Jjnited  States  ;  for  a  duty  of  that  kind  does  not  fall  on  the  consumer,  but 

jijpon  the  nation  struck  at.     The  evil,  then,  will  fall  upon  our  commerce 

Jjxclusively,  and  would  not  end   when  the  damage  equalled  the  debt  of 

jjlventy-five  millions  ;  for  in  such  a  system  no  one  can  say — we  will  injure 

►  le  commerce  of  the  nation  which  owes  us  and  will  not  pay  us,  by  every 

5,  leans  in  our  power,  but  we  wjll  stop  when  the  debt  is  paid.     In  order  to 

li  $timate  the  damage  which  may  accrue  to  us,  we  must  count  not  only  the 

jims  which  will   be  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  but  the 

»sses  which  our  commerce  will  have  to  endure  from  this  retaliation. 

The  evil  will  be  great — more  extensive  than  calculation  can  reach ;  it 

[i,iould  interrupt  for  a  long  time  the  relations  upon  which  the  prosperity  of 

Jfaany  cities  of  France  at  this  moment  depends.     Your  manufactories  and 

l„|iour  vineyards  demand  a  steady  market ;  they  require  new  outlets  that 

!3u  will  not  be  always  able  to  procure  them.     Do  not,  therefore,  to-day, 

,j!om  considerations  not  founded  in  justice,  close  the  markets  upon  whicU 

j'i  leir  prosperity  depends. 

'•!  I  repeat,  then,  that  this  question  is  one  of  the  most  serious  character 
|.|hich  can  be  debated.  I  repeat,  that  no  one  can  guaranty  that  the  rejec- 
[Jon  of  the  treaty  will  not  produce  measures  injurious  to  commerce  ;  to 
,J>th  nations  undoubtedly  ;  but  always  most  fatal  to  that  which  receives 
(J  e  first  blow. 

.|1  I  will  only  add  a  word  more.     We  were  told  yesterday  that  it  would 
JAi  very  easy  on  our  side  to  resort  to  a  retaliatory  system  ;  that,  if  the  Go- 
J.I  ;rnment  of  the  United  States  can  pay  itself  by  its  own  measures,  France 
*  m  retaliate  likewise. 

^.,  That,  gentlemen,  we  have  great  reason  to  doubt,  and  upon  that  subject 
e  future  presents  enough  to  excite  all  your  fears.  If  once,  that  course 
adopted,  that  war  of  commerce  once  declared,  the  consequences  would 
!  most  disastrous  to  our  affairs. 


518  L  t)oc.  No.  2.  ] 

Having  given  to  the  Chamber  my  thoughts  on  commercial  interests,  I 
will  add  a  lew  words  upon  the  political  reasons  which  I  think  should  deter- 
niinc  the  acceptance  o['  the  treaty. 

France  has  always  sustained  the  cause  of  the  liberty  of  the  seas.  It 
was  her  right,  it  has  been  her  glory.  It  is  her  pride,  that  in  her  political 
relations  she  has  been  always  found  combating  on  the  side  of  justice  ;  for  the 
weak  against  the  powerful,  for  the  oppressed  against  the  oppressor;  in  fine, 
for  the  cause  of  liberty  and  right.  For  this  cause,  what  chance  of  suc- 
cess is  there,  if  not  in  an  intimate  alliance  between  France  and  that  nation 
in  possession  of  the  next  strongest  marine  after  England  ?  France  has 
the  most  direct  and  positive  interest  in  a  strict  alliance  wilh  the  United 
States ;  ar.d  in  deciding  upon  this  transaction,  in  deciding  upon  this  co- 
venant with  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  I  will  pronounce  that 
we  have  pursued  a  wise  policy,  and  the  only  policy  worthy  of  France. 

This  policy  will  be  not  only  useful  to  France  at  the  present  day,  but  it 
will  be  still  more  so  in  future,  for  the  liberty  of  the  seas  depends  upon 
the  agreement  Nvhich  subsists  between  us  and  the  Government  of  the 
tJnited  States.  Recall  to  mind  the  situation  of  France  when  that  treaty 
was  concluded  ;  there  were  then  two  nations  in  the  world,  one  in  the  new 
world,  the  other  in  the  old,  which  professed  the  same  doctrines  with  us, 
whose  Governments  reposed  upon  the  same  principles  with  our  Govern- 
ment;  that  is  to  say,  upon  the  princijjle  that  the  law  ought  to  be  the  ex- 
pression of  the  national  majority,  and  not  the  will  of  one  man,  or  of  an 
aristoci'acy.  These  two  Powers  were  England  in  the  old  world,  and  the 
United  States  in  the  new. 

You  have  been  often  told  that  it  was  the  true  interest  of  France  to  ally 
herself  with  liberal  Governments;  I  agree  in  the  sentiment,  gentlemen, 
and  therefore  I  approve  the  conduct  of  the  Government  in  this  case.  But 
the  alliance  we  should  cultivate  is  not  that  cold  neutrality  of  which  the 
honorable  M.  Bignon  i»as  spoken — it  is  not  that  common  acknowledgment 
which  the  United  States  accord  to  every  Government  de  facto,  which 
is  successively  given  to  Don  Miguel  and  Donna  Maria,  but  a  lively 
sympathy,  a  strict  alliance,  a  community  of  efforts  responsive  to  a  com- 
munity of  principles  and  interests.  Gentlemen,  I  conceive  that  those  con- 
siderations did  not  operate  with  the  Government  of  the  Restoration.  It 
had  other  supporters ;  it  relied  for  assistance  upon  the  Holy  Alliance,  upon 
Governments  avowing  its  own  principles.  It  was  of  less  importance  to 
them  than  to  us  to  injure  the  United  States. 

To  return  to  the  question,  gentlemen,  for  I  do  not  wish  to  tire  the 
patience  of  the  Chamber,  I  say,  then,  that  in  my  opinion  France  is  truly 
indebted  to  the  United  States  ;  that  positive  calculations  have  been  pr«*^ 
duced  to  show  us  the  amount  due.  In  the  speeches  of  those  who  have  op- 
posed the  treaty,  1  have  found  neither  the  same  exactness,  nor  the  same 
strictness  of  calculation  ;  and,  in  fine,  the  compensation  spoken  of  cannot, 
in  my  o})inion,  be  admitted  to  be  just.  The  question  of  justice  being  es* 
tablished,  I  think  we  should  jeopard,  by  the  non-execution  of  the  treaty, 
all  the  interests  of  our  true  policy,  as  well  as  of  our  commerce. 

No  other  guaranties  are  given  me  against  these  dangers,  than  mere 
opinions  and  pure  hypotheses.  I  have  more  faith,  gentlemen,  in  the  acts, 
and,  I  may  also  say.  in  the  language  of  our  Government ;  it  is  charged 
with  the  superintendence  of  our  foreign  relations,  and  certainly  it  de- 
serves to  be  believed  when  it  warns  us  of  danger  in"  this  portion  of  our 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  619 

affairs.     Convinced  as  I  am  that  tlie  consequences  of  a  rejection  will  be 
disastrous,  and  that,  if  the  Chamber  adopt  that  course,  it  will  experience 
a  bitter  but  superfluous  regret,   I  cannot  assume  the    responsibility   of 
a  refusal  :  I  shall  give  my  vote  for  the  bill.     [Approbation.] 
M.  Salverte. 

Gentlemen  :  The  honorable  members  who  have  defended  the  bill  during 
the  sessiofi,  lay  much  sti-ess  on  the  commercial  regulations  embraced  in 
the  treaty.  I  will  follow  them  in  this  discussion,  not  that  I  cannot  add 
other  considerations  to  those  calculated  to  disprove  the  existence  of  an  ab- 
solute debt  on  the  part  of  France  to  tlie  United  States,  but  1  feel  that 
t'ae  debate  is  too  far  advanced  to  permit  me  to  take  up  your  attention  on 
that  point. 

In  the  course  of  debate  upon  the  commercial  part  of  the  question,  it  has 
been  afiirmed,  that  if  we  do  not  adoj)t  the  proposed  treaty,  we  shall  jeopard 
our  relations  with  the  United  States,  and  shall  so  embarrass  them  as  to 
produce  consequences  not  onl^  grievous,  but  frightful  and  disastrous. 

The  orator  whom  you  have  just  heard  has  explained  very  clearly  the 
principles  which  ought  to  govern  nations  in  their  commercial  relations. 
I  am  sui'prised  that,  after  he  had  so  vrell  explained  tliem,  he  did  not  make 
the  application  of  them  to  our  true  situation.  In  fact,  gentlemen,  the 
(lays  of  wars  of  custom-houses  are  past  witli  enliglitencd  nations,  with 
those  who  understand  and  practise  a  sound  commercial  theory.  We  no 
longer  impose  duties  to  injure  a  neighboring  people.  We  impose  them 
because  it  is  our  interest  to  do  so  ;  and,  as  we  know  very  well  that  retal- 
iations are  bad,  we  renounce  them  altogether. 

What  is  the  p(5sition  of  the  United  States  with  respect  to  us  ?  In  order 
to  show  that,  I  am  forced  to  go  back  to  the  treaty  of  cession  of  Louisiana  ; 
and  I  am  under  the  greater  necessity  of  doing  so,  since  the  honorable  M. 
Duchatel  has  treated  so  liglitly  tlie  8t!i  article  of  the  treaty  of  Louisiana, 
upon  which  the  whole  question  rests.  Wtien  Napoleon  desired  to  cede 
Louisiana  to  the  United  States,  it  was  not  a  litigated  right  which  he  wished 
to  cede  to  tliem.  Spain  had  made  a  full  and  entire  abandonment  to  us. 
The  cession  021  her  part  was  not  com|)letely  executed  ;  but  the  French  au- 
thorities had  been  several  months  in  Louisiana,  in  order  to  receive  posses- 
sion, which  was  much  desired  by  the  inhabitants. 

It  was  in  tliis  state  of  things  that  Napoleon  concluded  the  treaty  of  ces- 
sion. The  Spaniards,  who  had  [)rotested  at  first,  no  longer  tiiouglit  of  op- 
posing any  obstacle  to  its  execution.  M.  Lambot,  as  Prefect,  took  possession 
in  the  name  of  France,  and  the  American  authorities  received  from  the 
French  authoi'ities,  and  not  from  those  of  Spain,  the  possession  and  the 
i  proprietorship  of  t!ie  State. 

No  doubt  tlien  exists  as  to  the  entire  right  of  France  ;  no  doubt  as  to 
the  honest  intention  and  the  importance  of  the  two  conditions  of  the  cession. 
A  sum  of  eighty  millions,  of  which  twenty  were  applicable  to  the  claims 
of  the  U)iite<l  States,  for  losses  which  their  commerce  had  suffered  from 
the  commencement  of  the  war  between  France  and  England  -,  such  was  the 
first  condition.  Observe,  gentlemen,  tiiat  it  was  then  acknowledged  by 
the  American  plenijmtentiaries  themselves,  that  this  sum  of  twenty  mil- 
lions was  probably  greater  than  tlie  amount  of  the  well  founded  claims, 
and  they  even  expressed  a  desire  that  France  would  renounce  all  claim  to 
any  excess  tliere  might  be.  Tiiis  merits  your  attention. 
You  see  upon  what  footing,  even  in  the  conditions  of  the  definitive  treaty, 


520  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

the  claimants  value  the  losses  for  which  tliey  (lemand  compensation ;  of 
themselves,  and  without  the  charge  being  made,  the  Americans  acknow- 
ledged that  their  demands  were  probably  too  high.  The  second  condition 
of  the  cession,  stipulated  by  article  8,  promised, /orerer,  and  not  tempora- 
rily, to  Frenchmen,  all  the  advantages  attached  to  nationality  in  Louisiana. 

M.  Duchatel  has  endeavored,  by  figures,  to  show  that  those  advantages 
were  of  little  value,  and  to  prove  that  they  do  not  merit  the  importance 
which  has  been  attached  to  them.  In  the  mean  time,  gentlemen,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  the  United  States  firmly  refused  to  perform  the  8th  article  ;  when 
they  urged  their  pecuniary  claims,  and  when  France  demanded  the  execu- 
tion of  the  Bth  article,  they  refused  to  recognise  the  obligation.  It  is  only 
in  1831  that  they  appear  to  consent  to  the  recognition,  and  then  they  ob- 
tained the  surrender  in  the  treaty  which  is  now  proposed  for  your  sanction. 
It  is  not  then  a  trivial  right ;  an  imaginary  right ;  so  much  the  less  so,  as 
it  was  to  have  been  enjoyed  forever. 

Notwithstanding  what  M.  Duchatel  has  said  relative  to  the  proposition 
of  the  United  States,  we  have  not  forgotten  the  extent  of  Louisiana,  that 
immense  territory,  stretching  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
and  which  the  current  of  population  from  the  east  to  the  west  of  North 
America  is  daily  recovering  from  the  state  of  nature.  The  greater  the 
advancement  of  the  United  States  of  America  is  admitted  to  be  in  their 
commercial  relations,  or  home  industry,  the  more  important  you  must 
acknowledge  the  right  we  should  have  enjoyed  in  Louisiana  to  have  been; 
its  importance  is  such  indeed,  that,  at  the  end  of  half  a  century,  that  right 
would  have  yielded  not  merely  an  advantage  of  thirteen  or  fourteen  thou- 
sand francs,  as  has  been  said,  but  incalculable  commercial  benefits. 

What  has  been  given  as  compensation  for  that  advantage  ?  A  temporary 
reduction  of  duty  on  our  wines  ;  a  reduction  compensated  in  another  place 
by  a  similar  reduction  of  duties  upon  American  cottons.  It  is  objected 
that  there  is  no  similarity  in  the  cases,  that  our  commerce  required  a  re- 
duction of  duty  upon  cottons;  without  doubt;  but  why  not  suppose  that 
the  commerce  of  the  United  States  equally  required  a  reduction  upon  those 
of  wines  ?  What  proves  that  it  does  not  ?  You  agree  that  their  consump- 
tion of  wine  augments  every  day  ;  it  is  therefore  evident  that  it  is  to  their 
advantage  to  facilitate  that  consumption. 

In  relation  to  national  preferences,  I  say  frankly  I  think  we  may  dispense 
with  belief  in  them.  If  our  wines  are  preferred  to  those  of  other  countries, 
it  is  because  our  wines  are  much  better ;  not  from  any  particular  regard, 
or  individual  kindness,  of  which  I  believe  there  is  very  little  in  matters  of 
trade. 

The  soundest  calculntions  are  those  upon  which  the  United  States  of 
America  act,  because  they  are  essentially  a  commercial  and  calculating 
people.  They  are  so  considered  hy  every  one  who  has  lived  in  the  United 
States  ;  by  all  who  have  had  intercourse  with  their  merchants,  or  with  their 
cabinet  at  W^ashington.  We  are  asked,  if  we  believe  that  the  Government 
of  the  Union  will  see  this  treaty  rejected,  which  it  regards  as  concluded,^ 
without  some  resentment  ?  If  it  were  necessary  to  reply  to  that  objection, 
I  should  perhaps  have  to  raise  my  voice,  not  against  the  United  States,  but 
against  those  ministers  who  have  placed  us  in  a  position  to  excite  such  a 

fear. 

In  fact,  the  treaty  was  ratified  by  the  United  States  of  ^Vmerica  on  the 
2d  of  February,  1832.     Nothing  prevented  the  ministers  of  the  King  from 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  521 

receiving  the  news  of  that  ratification  during  the  mouth  of  April  follow- 
ing, and,  as  the  Chamber  was  then  in  session,  fr-om  communicating  the 
fact  to  it.  Instead  of  which,  the  treaty  was  only  brought  to  tiic  Chamber 
during  the  two  sessions  of  18S3,  and  always  in  such  a  manner  as  to  pre- 
vent immodiatc  action.  A  great  number  of  laws  N>ere  [)rcseiited  for  dis- 
cussion, •before  that  which  was  to  confirm  the  treaty. 

We  do  not  riispute  tiie  rigiit  of  tlie  Chamber  to  debate  one  law  in  pre- 
ference to  anotiier;  but  we  do  say  that  Ih.c  iniiMsters,  liaving  a  reasonable 
assurance  of  a  majority  in  the  Chamber,  might  easily  iiave  obtained 
a  fair  hearing  for  the  law  relative  to  the  treaty  with  the  United  States. 
They  did  not  endeavor  to  do  so,  and  we  find  ourselves  to-day  almost  com- 
pelled to  accept  this  treaty.  In  a  word,  \\c  are  jilaced  in  a  position  in 
which  a  refusal  will  ap])ear  almost  an  outrage  to  the  Government  with 
which  we  treat.  Is  that  the  ])osition  we  siiould  occupy  ?  Ilivvo  the  minis- 
ters nothing  to  reproach  themselves  v> ith  ?  Do  they  wish  to  snake  the  vote 
of  the  ChaUiber  of  Deputies  a  n^ere  rrgisterii)g  ?  Is  it  not  with  tiiis  law  as 
with  those  gj-anting  su])plementary  aj)[)ro|)riations,  and  v,hicli  aie  proposed 
to  us  in  the  name  of  necessity,  with  tiie  words — the  expense  has  been  iruuu'red, 
and  must  be  repaid  ?  If  such  a  situation  riroduces  ditliculty,  and  some  lit- 
tle loss  of  dignity,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  Chamber;  gentlemen,  you  know 
to  whom  tlje  fault  belongs. 

But,  gentlemen,  if  you  do  not  accept  tlie  treaty,  you  endanger  an  import- 
ant commerce.  The  United  States  will  absolutely  exclude  }oiir  silks. 
You  put  to  hazard  all  the  tariffs  which  regulate  your  commerce  with  the 
United  States. — In  reply  to  that  assertion,  I  only  supposeone  thing,  namely, 
that  in  fact  the  United  States  may  liavc  no  interest  in  admitting  yom-  silks  ; 
that  it  may  be  their  interest  to  exclude  them,  and  to  modify  their  tarifi'of  du- 
ties. Now,  I  ask  you,  after  the  treaty  shall  ha\e  been  ratified,  i\nd  tiie  pay- 
ment made,  what  is  to  prevent  the  United  States  from  changing  their  tariff 
and  excluding  our  silks  ?  It  would  \w  here  only  a  deliiy  uffour  or  five  years. 
In  fact,  nothing  is  less  certain  than  the  prett-nded  disngcr  :  and,  as  I  said  at 
the  beginning,  that  nation  which. is  essentially  calculating  and  prudent, 
will  regulate  its  conduct  by  its  commercial  interests.  In  statitg  that  the 
Americans  would  renounce  tiie  French  silk  trade,  and  relinquish  the  con- 
sum])tion  of  articles  to  which  they  give  a  preference,  hear  in  what  language 
the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  expressed  himself  yesterday.  The  words 
are  very  important;  I  request  the  attention  of  the  Chamber. 

"It  will  be  unnecessary  for  me  to  dwell  upon  considerations  of  public 
order,  which  are  inseparable  from  the  (piestion.  I  will  only  observe  to 
the  Chamber  that,  if  by  a  decision,  which  I  must  be  permitted  to  call  de- 
plorable, there  should  be  suddenly  produced  any  great  discouragement 
in  many  branches  of  .our  industry,  any  great  disturbance  in  our  foreign 
markets,  it  would  multiply  considerably  the  chances  of  disorder  in  our 
country ;  and  that  the  least  of  these  inconveniences  would  oblige  us  to 
do  for  Bourdeaux,  for  Lyons,  and  for  other  cities,  what  we  have  been  com- 
pelled to  do  for  La  Vendee,  to  increase  our  military  establishment.  It 
would  not  be  necessary  that  this  increase  should  be  very  great,  to  absorb 
the  saving  which  is  proposed  for  the  relief  of  the  tax  payers."    • 

I  read  a  little  further : 

"  As  to  the  responsibility  for  events  and  consequences,  from  this  mo- 
ment, gentlemen,  it  no  longer  rests  with  us;;oiir  task  is  finished — yours 
commences."  * 

34 


522  f  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

Thus,  gentlemen,  you  see  in  what  light  you  care  to  consider  the  discus- 
sion. If  you  reject  the  law,  you  are  told  the  commerce  of  silks  and  wines 
of  France  will  cease  in  America ;  this  interruption  will  inevitably  induce 
disturbances  at  Lyons,  and  even  at  Bourdeaux ;  and  these  disturbances 
will  be  productive  of  such  violent  movements,  that  it  will  be  necessary 
to  increase  your  military  force. 

And  these  words  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs ! 
Observe,  first,  gentlemen,  their  etl'ect  abroad  ;  for  you  must  know  that 
this  tribune  has  its  echoes ;  that  the  language  here  uttered  is  heard 
afar,  especially  when  it  falls  from  the  mouth  of  a  minister  of  the  King. 

Henceforv.ard,  gentlemen,  all  nations  having  commercial  relations  with 
us,  either  essential  or  advantageous  to  our  industry,  are  invited,  are  en- 
couraged, to  bring  forward  their  claims  against  us,  well  or  ill  founded, 
and  to  carry  their  pretensions  as  high  as  they  please  ;  since  all  then  can 
threaten,  after  the  language  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  to  inter- 
rupt their  commerce  with  you  in  case  of  refusal,  and  involve  the  nation 
in  the  most  violent  troubles. 

It  is  of  little  importance,  when  the  consequences  may  be  so  serious, 
that  the  language  of  the  minister  was  addressed  to  the  Chamber  of  De- 
puties, to  the  elected  Representatives  of  Fiance.  Now,  if  in  effect  it 
should  happen,  by  any  misfortune,  that  the  labors  of  the  silk  manufacto- 
ries of  Lyons  should  be  suspended ;  that  the  products  should  remain  on 
hand  ;  that  new  troubles  should  break  forth  in  consequence,  in  the  second 
city  of  the  kingdom,  to  what  cause  would  they  be  attributed?  Who 
would  be  pointed  out  to  the  animosity  of  the  workmen,  suffering  with 
liunger  and  distress?  You — you  who  have  refused  to  vote  for  a  treaty 
oppressive  and  burdensome  to  France. 

Recently  an  article  has  been  pointed  out  to  you,  inserted  in  the  official 
journal,  which  exposed  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  to  the  animosity  of  the 
army,  on  account  of  a  reduction  which  they  voted  in  the  war  budget. 
The  ministers  of  the  King  have  honestly  disavowed  that  article  ;  it  is  only 
to  be  regretted  that  it  has  not  been  explained  how  it  came  to  be  admitted 
in  a  journal  where  no  political  article  can  get  access  without  their  order 
or  authority.  It  is  not  in  a  newspaper  article  to-day  that  an  attack,  no 
less  severe,  has  been  made  upon  the  Chamber.  From  this  tribune  even 
has  it  been  proclaimed  to  the  workmen — if  employment  fails,  if  the  com- 
merce in  silks,  which  feeds  you,  languishes,  declines,  or  is  threatened 
with  annihilation,  you  may  attribute  your  miseries  to  the  Chamber  of  De- 
puties, which  refuses  to  sanction  a  treaty  perhaps  unjust,  but  which  they 
ought  to  accept  as  a  necessary  sacrifice,  in  order  to  purchase  the  continu- 
ance of  our  commercial  relations. 

In  making  this  explanation,  gentlemen,  I  certainly  do  not  arraign  the 
intentions  of  the  minister  whose  words  I  have  recited  ;  but  I  cannot  avoid 
remarking,  that  this  language,  intended  to  make  an  impression  upon  your 
minds,  will  have  a  wider  range  and  a  more  dangerous  tendency. 

In  this  state  of  things,  as  I  do  not  participate  in  those  fears,  so  I  hope 
jow  will  not;  and,  above  all,  gentlemen,  that  you  will  not  accept  the 
ti  eaty  as  a  yoke  which  you  must  bear.  I  think  that  if  it  were  for  us  to  deter- 
mine the  clauses  of  the  treaty,  we  could  propose  an  amendment,  and  of- 
fer to  treat,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  by  compromise  ;  and  in  order  to 
terminate  all  discussions,  we  could  vote  a  sum  often  or  twelve  millions; 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  523 

but  to  grant  that  only  on  condition  of  obtaining  justice  for  our  claim  under 
the  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  cession  of  Louisiana,  seeing  that  this  arti- 
cle possesses  much  greater  importance  than  has  been  given  to  it — an  im- 
portance acknowledged  by  the  United  States  themselves. 

But  we  are  debating  upon  a  treaty  which  we  cannot  modify.  Then 
let  us  not  hesitate  to  reject  it ;  a  refusal  will  not  be  the  signal  of  a  rup- 
ture between  the  United  States  and  France.  The  immediate  conse- 
quence of  a  rejection  will  be  an  overture  for,  and  conclusion  of,  a  new 
and  more  equal  convention,  based  upon  right  and  justice,  in  which  the 
interests  of  France,  and  those  of  the  United  States,  will  be  both  attend- 
ed to. 

M.  Jay,  reporter  to  the  committee. 

Gentlemen  :  The  question  submitted  to  you  is  of  so  much  importance, 
that  I  hope  you  will  listen  with  attention  to  the  reflections  which  the  re- 
porter of  your  committee  is  charged  to  present  to  you. 

Numerous  objections  have  been  raised  against  the  bill  which  is  submit- 
ted to  your  deliberations.  Never  has  a  more  spirited  opposition  been 
manifested ;  never  have  discordant  opinions  been  more  effectually  con- 
centrated in  order  to  defeat  a  proposition  of  the  Government ;  in  this  there 
is  nothing  to  surprise  us.  With  some,  the  difficulty  lies  in  embracing,  in 
all  its  parts,  a  question  so  complicated  ;  with  others,  it  is  a  very  natural 
desire  of  escaping  from  a  pecuniary  sacrifice,  which  is  never  yielded  to 
but  with  repugnance  ;  and  we  too,  gentlemen,  we  have  deplored  this  sa- 
crifice ;  and  it  is  only  after  a  long  discussion  of  the  inconveniences  and 
advantages  of  the  treaty  ;  after  having  maturely  weighed  the  justice  of  the 
American  claims,  that  our  conviction  has  been  formed,  and  that  we  have 
decided,  out  of  regard  both  to  the  moral  and  pecuniary  interests  of  the. 
country,  to  propose  to  you  the  adoption  of  this  bill. 

The  objections  which  have  been  presented  to  you  may  be  divided  into 
two  classes — general  objections,  and  particular  objections.  1  proceed  to 
examine  them  in  succession. 

The  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  were  just  in  their  application  to  thci 
commerce  of  the  United  States,  since  the  Federal  Government  did  not 
make  its  flag  respected.  This  objection  has  been  twice  presented  at  this 
tribune.  1  shall  only  examine  it  in  regard  to  the  public  morals,  which,  as 
M.  Lamarline  has  said,  is  the  highest  of  all  interests. 

Our  honorable  colleague,  M.  Bigrion,  has  said  to  you,  <<  that  a  neutral 
Government,  placed  between  t\\  o  belligerent  parties,  which  does  not  make 
its  flag  respected  by  one  of  them,  has  no  right  to  demand  that  it  shall  be 
respected  by  the  other."  These  words  have  been  pronounced  with  so  much 
assurance  as  an  axiom  of  public  law,  that  I  have  considered  the  proposi- 
tion in  all  its  aspects,  in  order  to  determine  its  correctness ;  and  after  a 
mature  examination,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  it  is  immoral,  and 
contrary  to  the  first  principles  of  national  law.  It  might  be  made  the 
fundamental  principle  of  a  code  of  maritime  depredation  ;  and  this  I  pro- 
ceed to  prove. 

In  order  that  a  neutral  vessel  placed  between  two  belligerent  partiea 
may  make  its  flag  respected,  it  is  necessary  to  admit,  at  least,  that  it  have 
the  necessary  strength  to  command  and  obtain  this  respect;  otherwise, 
jou  justify  injustice  by  injustice.    I  reject  this  justification  in  the  name  of 


524  [  Doc.  No.   2.  J 

humanity  and  reason.  It  would  result,  from  the  principles  avowed  by  M. 
Bignon,  that  weakness  justifies  spoliation.  A  merchant  vessel  belonging 
to  a  neutral  Power  might  find  herself  under  the  guns  of  an  English  fri- 
gate ;  she  might  be  forced  to  submit  to  an  examination  of  her  papers  and 
merchandise.  Tiiis  operation  at  an  end,  she  might  resume  her  voyage, 
and  meet,  perhaps  the  same  day,  a  French  cruiser ;  and  because  she  had 
suffered  a  visit  which  she  had  not  power  to  prevent,  she  is  to  be  seized 
and  condemned.  Here  is  an  exemplificatioti  of  what  is  given  to  us  as  a 
principle  of  tlic  law  of  nations. 

Fortunately,  I  can  oppose  to  M.  Bignon  a  most  respectable  authority; 
and  that  authority  is  himself. 

To  lender  the  proposition  of  our  honorable  colleague  admissible,  it 
should  be  thus  modified.  A  neutral  Government  placed  between  two 
belligerent  Powers,  and  strong  enough  to  defend  the  honor  of  its  flag, 
ought  to  make  it  respected  by  both  parties.  This  is  precisely  what 
the  Americans  did.  As  soon  as  they  had  a  tolerable  navy,  they  de- 
clared war  against  Englarjd  ;  and  that,  in  order  to  have  their  flag 
respected.  Well,  notwithstanding  this  perilous  situation,  at  war  with  a 
maritime  Power  like  England,  depredations  were  committed  by  us  on 
their  commerce.  Tiiese  depredations  are  entered  on  one  of  the  lists  which 
were  used  in  calculating  the  indemnification. 

Again,  it  has  been  said,  "  as  it  is  easy  to  demonstrate  that  in  the  course 
of  the  war,  and  by  means  of  the  war,  the  Americans  have  in  different 
ways  obtained  much  n^ore  than  a  compensation  for  their  losses,  it  follows 
that  the  amount  of  indemnificatiorj,  in  the  present  case,  should  be  reduced 
very  low." 

It  is,  perhaps,  for  thc^first  time,  that  the  legitimate  benefits  derived  by  a 
neutral  nation,  from  tlie  natural  extension  of  its  commerce,  are  urged  as 
a  compensation  for  its  losses,  caused  by  a  violation  of  the  law  of  nations, 
and  for  which  it  claims  satisfaction.  Undoubtedly  the  United  States, 
under  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed,  and  with  their  wise 
policy,  did  profit  by  occurrences  which  unsettled  the  whole  world.  The 
victims  of  the  fury  of  all  parties — the  oppressed  of  all  nations — ail  those 
who  sought  a  refuge  from  the  general  storm — found  protection  and  safety 
in  the  United  States.  They  carried  there,  some  their  wealth,  others  their 
talents  and  industry.  Thus,  in  the  course  of  t!ie  war,  and  by  means  of 
the  war,  their  population  and  their  resources  were  increased.  It  is  by  this 
means,  and  by  tlieir  commerce,  that  they  have  raised  up  a  maritime  force, 
to  which  we  shall,  one  day,  owe  the  great  blessing  of  the  liberty  of  the 
seas. 

But,  I  ask  you,  what  is  there  in  common  between  these  causes  of  pros- 
perity and  the  claims  of  quiet  citizeas,  who,  against  all  right,  all  justice, 
have  been  violently  stripped  of  their  property,  and  ruined  by  illegal  con- 
fiscations ?  How  can  the  ])iosperity  of  a  State  be  a  compensation  to  an 
unfortunate  man  reduced  to  misery  ? 

A  Government  is  the  natural  pi'otector  of  its  subjects  :  it  cannot  aban- 
don their  cause  without  risking  its  own  dignity.  As  the  private  indi- 
vidual cannot  enforce  his  i-ights,  his  Government  is  under  an  obligation 
to  have  them  respected  :  it  is  a  tacit  convention  between  the  members  of  a 
society  t'.nd  the  power  which  rcijresents  it.  A  citizen  may  abandon  his 
rights;  a  Government   never.     Such   are   the  principles  of  tlie  law  of 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  525 

nations,  which  it  is  in  vain  to  endeavor  to  obscure  by  sophisms.  The 
American  Government  presents  in  this  case  an  example  by  wliich  all  free 
Governments  would  do  well  to  profit.  No  one  can  reproacli  it  for  this. 
In  claiming  indemnification  for  its  citizens  unjustly  despoiled,  it  but  dis- 
charges a  duty.  It  is  yours  to  examine  whether  the  demand  is  just  or 
unjust.  No  otiier  consideration  ought  to  influence  your  deliberations  : 
and  the  justice  of  this  claim  has  been  constantly  acknowledged  for  twenty 
years. 

Our  colleague,  the  deputy  from  Eure,  (M.  Bignon,)  has  said  to  you  that 
debts  from  one  State  to  another  are  not  sucii  as  improve  by  age  :  thus,  the 
older  a  debt  is,  the  more  justice  there  is  in  refusing  to  pay  it.  This  is  a 
principle  of  morals  entirely  behind  our  age,  and  one  which  I  cannot  admit : 
besides,  the  present  question  is  not  concerning  a  debt  from  one  State  to 
another  :  it  is  a  debt  from  a  State  to  the  citizens  of  another  country  :  it  is 
not  the  Federal  Government  that  has  suffered  ;  it  is  the  American  mer- 
chants who  have  sustained  the  damage  for  which  reparation  is  demanded. 

1  will  riow  answer  an  objection  presented  by  M.  Boissy  d'Anglas the 

American  Government  ought  to  take  into  consideration  the  services  which 
France  rendered  to  the  United  States  during  the  war  of  independence. 
Undoubtedly  the  armed  intervention  of  France  was  a  great  assistance  to 
the  United  States  in  their  contest  with  England.  The  Americans  have 
not  forgotten  it :  the  remembrance  of  the  bravery  and  discipline  of  the 
French  army,  of  the  good  conduct,  disinterestedness,  and  skill  of  its 
illustrious  chief,  Marshal  Rochambeau,  will  be  always  jjopular  in  the 
United  States  :  but  it  is  here  that  we  may  say,  the  services  of  one  State 
to  anotiier  do  not  improve  by  age.  It  was  not  only  by  sympathy  in  the 
independence  and  libwty  of  the  English  colonies  that  the  French  Govern- 
ment was  led  to  form  an  alliarice  with  tliem  :  it  dctermir.ed  to  efface,  if 
possible,  the  disgrace  which  it  had  contracted  by  the  treaty  of  1763  ;  to 
weaken  England,  and  restore  the  balance  among  the  maritime  Powers. 
That  war  had  not  a  sentimental  object;  it  had  a  political  object :  it  was 
for  the  interest  of  France  that  it  was  undeitaken.  This  service  rendered 
to  the  United  States,  from  calculation,  does  not  in  any  manner  justify  spo- 
liations which  have  been  committed  to  the  prejudice  of  Ameiican  citizens. 

It  is  proposed  to  us  to  follow  the  example  of  the  Restoration,  which  was 
never  willing  to  acknowledge  the  American  claims.  It  is  certain  that 
there  has  been  more  sympathy  with  the  republic  of  the  United  States  since 
the  revolution  of  July,  than  existed  under  the  Restoration  :  there  is  no 
need  of  explaining  the  reasons.  However,  it  would  be  unjust  to  say 
that  the  ministers  of  tlie  Restorjition  denied  the  justice  of  the  American 
claims;  they  acted  like  debtors  v.ho  plainly  acknowledge  their  debts, 
but  never  pay  them.  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  has  explained  to 
you  with  great  clearness  the  different  phases  of  the  negotiations  which 
"were  carried  on  at  tliat  period.  You  have  seen  that  the  Americans  were 
not  willing  to  join  the  Pov.ers  which  coalesced  against  France, and  profited 
by  our  disasters  to  exhaust  our  treasury.  If  the»United  States  liad  enter- 
ed into  the  Holy  Alliance,  they  would  have  had  nothing  to  ask  of  us  at 
this  day.  They  are  blamed  for  having  resumed  the  negotiation  after  the 
revolution  of  July.  It  is  said  they  have  been  too  impatient.  Observe, 
gentlemen,  that  they  have  been  negotiating  for  twenty  years  ;  certainly,  if 
they  have  shown  some  impatience  to  come  to  a  conclusion,  I  cannot  re- 
proach them  for  it ;  much  less  discern  in  that  circumstance  a  sufficient 


526  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

cause  for  refusing  them  justice.  The  ministry  of  which  M.  Casimir  Pe- 
rier  w as  ])iesi(Jent,  has  been  censured  witfi  bitterness ;  it  has  been  said 
that  no  other  ministry  would  have  approved  the  treaty.  The  present 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  has  nobly  refused  the  exception.  No  com- 
plaint, as  I  have  already  said,  was  raised  at  t!ie  time  against  the  treaty. 
The  decision  of  M.  Casimir  Perier  was  drawn  from  high  political  con- 
siderations. It  was  necessary  to  extend  our  commercial  relations  ;  to 
revive  our  then  languishing  manufaclures  ;  to  draw  closer  the  bonds  of 
friendship  with  a  free  people,  who  had  received  with  enthusiasm  the  news  of 
the  revolution  of  July.  And  what  was  required  to  accomplish  these  ends  ? 
A  simple  act  of  justice,  which  did  honor  to  the  nation  and  its  Government. 
Motives,  which  were  then  very  powerful,  appear  to  have  lost  their  force 
to-day.  But,  gentlemen,  is  our  future  so  certain  that  you  are  willing  to 
risk  a  rupture  with  a  friendly  nation,  which,  under  the  Directory  and  un- 
der the  Empire  submitted  to  so  many  violations  of  the  law  of  nations, 
without  committing  against  us  a  single  act  of  hostility  ;  and  which,  at  the 
crisis  when  the  Empire  was  sinking,  was  at  war  with  our  most  formidable 
enemy  ?  And  to  enable  us  to  dispense  with  being  just,  I  ask  you,  have  we 
made  an  eternal  compact  with  peace  ? 

I  have  now  arrived  at  the  last  general  objection  which  has  been  presented 
to  you  against  the  treaty.  You  have  been  told  that  <'for  eighty  licenses 
the  United  States  were  willing  to  liberate  France  from  her  whole  debt  to 
them.  Napoleon  falls  ;  it  is  not  eighty  vessels  that  are  admitted  into 
«ur  ports;  they  arrive  by  hundreds,  without  any  condition,  and  without 
regard  to  the  country  from  which  they  may  come."  It  is  hence  concluded 
that  the  American  Government  complains  with  a  bad  grace,  after  having 
been  so  largely  indemnified. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  embarrassed  to  know  how  to  treat  this  objection.  It 
has  been  said  that  it  was  not  serious  ;  and  if  I  did  not  know  that  the  speaker 
who  has  submitted  it  to  you  (M.  Bignon)  has  a  character  as  serious  as  his 
talents  are  elevated,  I  should  be  tempted  to  think  so  myself.  It  is  ne- 
cessary, then,  that  I  should  resolve  to   examine  it  seriously. 

There  is  a  great  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  the  licenses 
which  were  issued  by  the  Government  during  the  continental  blockade. 
I  think  I  recollect  that  they  were  then  very  much  sought  after,  and  that 
they  bore  a  considerable  value.  In  estimating  them  at  500,000  francs, 
{and  I  do  not  think  that  this  estimate  is  exaggerated,)  it  was  a  sum  of  forty 
millions  that  the  United  States  would  have  received  as  a  compensation  for 
the  indemnification  due  to  them.  The  fall  of  the  Empire  brought  about 
iinother„order  of  things.  Peace  was  re-established,  and  the  ports  of  France 
were  opejied  to  the  commerce  of  all  maritime  Powers.  How  can  any  one 
assimilate  the  exercise  of  a  right  common  to  all  nations,  to  privileged  li- 
censes which  would  have  profited  only  a  single  nation,  and  which  would 
have  conferred  advantages  from  which  the  others  would  have  been  ex- 
cluded ?  This,  gentlemen,  passes  my  conception.  If  the  United 
States  had  been  allowed  to  bring  into  France  the  products  of  the  colonies, 
they  would  have  reaped  great  advantages,  which  might  have  served  to  in- 
demnify their  citizens,  because  these  colonial  products  were  then  of  con- 
siderable value  :  but  when  peace  was  made,  this  kind  of  merchandise  fell, 
in  consequence  thereof,  to  its  natural  price,  and  nothing  remained  to  the 
merchants,  of  whatever  country  they  might  be,  but  the  profits  of  ordinary 
•commerce.  These  two  situations  were  very  different,  and,  as  I  have  just 
said,  no  similitude  can  be  established  between  them. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  527 

M.  Bignon  affirms  that,  after  the  treaties  of  1800  and  1803,  tlie  United 
States  were  expressly  engaged  to  France  not  to  suflier  any  violation  of 
their  essential  rights  ;  and  from  this  he  draws  tlie  conclusion,  that  hecause 
the  United  States  did  not  resist  from  the  beginning  the  aggressions  of 
Great  Britain,  they  have  failed  in  their  engagement  towards  France.  In 
such  serious  matters  the  first  duty  is  exactness.  M'ell,  gentlemen.  I  have 
read  those  treaties,  and  there  is  not  a  word  in  tl:en1  of  what  M.  Bignon 
has  told  you  ;  there  is  not  a  passage  from  \\hich  one  can  even  infer  such  an 
engagement.  It  is  not  true,  moreover,  that  the  United  States  submitted 
quietly  to  the  outrages  of  the  two  belligerent  Powers.  The  embargo  which 
has  been  spoken  of,  the  non-intercourse  ad,  and,  above  all,  the  war  of  1812, 
prove  that  we  cannot,  without  injustice,  accuse  them  of  not  having  sus- 
tained their  dignity  as  an  indejjendent  nation. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the  cession  of  Louisiana.  Exaggera- 
tion is  an  oratorical  ait,  as  well  as  any  other  ;  but  it  ought  not  to  be  made 
use  of  before  an  assembly  of  grave  and  enlightened  men.  There  is  no  one 
among  us  who  does  not  know  tiiat  thd  Emperor  ceded  lliis  colony  oiily  be- 
cause he  knew  that  he  could  not  keep  it.  In  ceding  it  to  the  United  States, 
lie  saved  it  from  the  grasp  of  England  j  and  eighty  millions  were  the  price 
of  this  politic  cessioj).  You  have  been  told  of  ihe  immense  injui-y  thai 
has  been  caused  by  the  infraction  of  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1803. 
The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  by  the  aid  of  very  simple  calculations, 
has  demonstrated  to  you  that  the  compensation  establislicd  by  the  reduction 
of  the  duties  on  our  wines,  and,  I  will  add,  by  tlie  removal  of  the  import 
duties  upon  our  silks,  is  advantageous  to  our  commerce  ;  and  that  we 
cannot  lose  such  an  advantage  without  disturbance  in  our  manufacturing 
and  commercial  towns. 

After  having  exhausted  the  series  of  general  objections,  I  corae  now  to 
the  particular  objections  ;  to  those,  at  least,  which  appear  to  be  of  a  nature 
to  fix  your  attention. 

I  ought,  first,  to  repel  an  inconsiderate  reproach,  which  I  have  been  sur- 
prised to  hear  from  the  mouth  of  a  colleague  assisted  in  the  deliberations 
of  your  committee. 

It  relates  to  the  list  comprising  twelve  vessels  seized  before  the  1  st  of 
November,  1810,  and  condemned  subsequently ;  that  is  to  say,  after  the  ab- 
solute revocation  of  the  prohibitory  decrees.  "  I  reveal  this  fact,"  says 
M.  Bignon,  "  that  the  Chamber  may  see  \\\\\\\\\\^i  indulgence  the  Ameri- 
can claims  have  been  listened  to." 

Here  I  do  not  wish,  and  I  ought  not,  to  accuse  M.  Bignon  of  any  thing 
but  a  want  of  attention  or  of  memory  ;  and  I  would  be  understood  as  making 
this  reservation.  He  has  forgotten  that  we  brought  to  bear,  with  all  the 
force  of  which  we  were  capable,  the  motives  for  not  admitting  this  list,  and 
that  we  carried  the  respective  values  outside  of  the  estimate  of  those  ac- 
knowledged asjust;(yiJejW^e  4 17;)  submitting  the  question  moreover  to  the 
decision  of  the  Chamber.  No,  gentlemen,  there  has  been  in  the  discussions 
of  your  committee  neither  partiality  for  the  immoral  system  of  confisca- 
tion, nor  indulgence  towards  the  claims  w  Inch  have  been  the  consequences 
of  it.  We  have  considered  ourselves  as  arbiters  in  a  transaction  in  which 
it  was  necessary  to  bring  together  and  reconcile  opposing  interests.  We 
have  also  taken  into  serious  consideration  our  actual  situation,  and  the  ir- 
reparable damage  which  might  be  caused  to  our  commerce  and  manufac- 


528  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

tures  by  the  rupture  of  a  treaty  which  the  United  States  have  looked  upon 
for  three  years  as  a  thing  accomplished. 

Do  not  suiler  yourselves  to  be  seduced,  gentlemen,  by  assertions  which 
are  hazarded,  but  whiqh  events  will  not  fail  to  falsify.  Our  honorable  col- 
league has  told  you,  wittf  an  atSrmative  tone,  that  the  rejection  of  the  treaty 
would  have  no  influence  upon  the  relations  of  friendship  and  commeVce  that 
exist  between  France  and  the  United  States  ;  that  we  need  not  fear  any 
augmentation  of  the  duties  in  the  ports  of  the  Union,  either  upon  our 
wines  or  our  silks.  Gentlemen,  do  not  place  confidence  in  such  assertions  ; 
they  might  draw  you  into  a  decision  for  v.hich  you  would  be  alone  respon- 
sible to  the  country,  and  of  which,  enlightened  by  experience,  you  would 
•  some  day  bitterly  regret  the  sad  results. 

What  particularly  interested  your  committee  was,  toknov/  whether  we 
did  or  did  not  owe  indemnification  to  the  United  States.  The  debt  has 
never  been  denied,  not  even,  as  I  have  told  you,  under  the  Restoratipn. 
The  only  dispute  has  been  about  the  amount  of  the  sum  due.  We  have 
made  a  compromise  ;  but  what  is  a  compromise  ?  It  is  an  agreement,  say 
the  writers  on  public  lav.',  by  which,  without  determining  precisely  upon 
the  justice  of  the  opposing  pretensions,  there  is  a  relaxation  on  both  sides, 
until  the  parties  come  to  an  arrangement.  It  is  in  politics  the  means  of 
terminating  peaceably  the  differences  which  spring  up  between  two  inde- 
pendent nations,  whose  interest  it  is  to  live  in  friendship.  It  is,  above 
all,  in  this  viev/,  as  a  compromise,  that  your  committee  has  considered  the 
treaty  of  1831.  If  it  has  discussed  secondary  questions,  it  was  that  it 
might  have  the  right  to  say  to  you  that  the  estimate  of  the  indemnifica- 
tion had  been  made  conscientiously,  and  after  mature  reflection  ;  for  as  to 
the  fundamental  question,  to  ascertain  whether  you  ought  to  adopt  the  pro- 
posed bill,  it  has  only  consulted  the  good  of  the  country,  and  has  been 
influenced  in  its  decision  only  by  motives  of  justice,  and  of  political  and 
commercial  interest. 

Some  speakers  have  attacked  the  bases  of  valuation  upon  which  we  have 
proceeded,  for  determining  the  amount  of  the  indemnification.  I  will  not 
here  return  to  the  calculations  which  have  been  presented  to  you,  either 
in  the  report  of  your  committee,  or  at  this  tribune.  I  will  cite  to  you  one 
fact,  which  will  prove  that  we  have  adopted  the  most  moderate  rates  in 
the  calculation  of  our  estimates.  We  have  estimated  only  at  13,000  francs 
each  the  whole  number  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  vessels,  for 
which  indemnification  was  allowed.  I  ask  of  all  the  honorable  members 
of  the  Chamber,  who  know  any  thing  about  shipbuilding,  who  know, 
above  all,  the  value  of  manual  labor  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
\vhether.it  was  possible  to  adopt  a  lower  standard  of  value  ? 

I  come,  finally,  to  the  objection  which  appears  to  have  made  the  greatest 
impression  upon  the  Chamber.  "  It  is  not  to  the  United  States,"  it  has 
been  said,  "  that  France  will  pay  the  twenty-five  millions,  but  to  some 
speculators  who  have  purchased  at  a  low  price  the  American  claims." 
Gentlemen,  even  if  the  assertion  were  true,  we  ought  still  to  accept  the 
treaty,  but  it  rests  only  upon  vague  rumors  ;  we  have  required  that  one  fact 
should  be  cited,  one  single  fact ;  we  have  not  been  able  to  obtain  an  answer. 
Well,  gentlemen,  I  will  myself  cite  to  you  a  respectable  authority,  which 
will  prove  to  you  what  little  confidence  you  ought  to  place  in  the  rumors 
of  which  I  have  just  spoken.     An  honorable  member  of  the  bar  of  Paris, 


[   Doc.   No.  2.   ]  529 

who  has  been  an  advocate  in  the  Court  of  Cassation,  M.  de  Lagrange, 
who  enjovs  general  esteem,  has  addressed  to  me  a  letter,  of  which  he  has 
authorized  me  to  make  use.     I  find  in  it  the  following  passage: 

"  M.  Bignon  has  insinuated  that  the  indemnification  had  become  the 
prey  of  speculators.  Leaving  aside  the  great  publicity  of  the  commission 
for  liquidation  sitting  at  Washington,  I  am  led  to  think  that  he  has  been 
incorrectly  informed,  because  the  numerous  demands  for  documents  which 
I  receive  from  the  United  States,  are  addressed  to  me  by  the  individical 
owners  of  the  captured  vessels  i  have  formerly  defended." 

At  the  close  of  this  long  and  painful  discussion,  I  have  only  to  present 
to  the  Chamber  some  general  observations. 

I  am  not  astonished  at  the  differences  of  opinion  which  have  sprung  up 
on  the  subject  of  the  treaty  of  1831 .  These  differences  existed  also  among 
your  committee.  It  was  only  after  having  consulted  all  the  documents  ; 
after  having  received  all  the  explanations  which  it  was  possible  to  obtain; 
after  having  ascertained  the  truth  of  all  the  official  statements,  and  of  all  the 
calculations,  that  your  committee,  of  which  M.  Bignon  was  one,  decided 
unanimously  to  acknowledge  that  the  demand  of  the  United  States  was 
just  in  principle,  and,  by  a  majority  of  eight  voices  against  one,  that  the 
rate  of  indemnification  had  been  conscientiously  regulated. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  would  say,  if  I  did  not  know  your  loyalty,  that  you 
have  the  power  of  refusing  to  be  just;  that  there  is  no  superior  tribunal  to 
which  an  appeal  can  be  taken  from  your  decision.  Itis])recisely  because 
your  position  is  such,  that  you  ought  to  guard  yourselves  against  all  influ- 
ence of  position  or  party,  against  all  prejudice  arising  from  personal  in- 
terest. The  question  is  one  of  justice.  It  is,  above  all,  to  nations  that  are 
free  and  proud  of  their  liberty,  that  it  belongs  to  give  to  the  world  lessons 
of  high  morality.  Be  assured  that  the  enemies  of  your  revolution  await 
with  anxiety  the  issue  of  your  deliberations  ;  and  that  they  would  applaud 
a  result  which  would  have  the  effect  of  separating  two  nations,  which 
ought  to  remain  united  in  the  interest  of  liberty  and  civilization. 

Our  true  position,  in  this  respect,  could  not  escape  a  man  so  enlighten- 
ed and  of  so  pure  a  patriotism  as  M.  Bignon.  "It  cannot  be  disputed," 
he  has  said,  "  that  when  a  treaty  has  been  three  years  in  existence,  the 
Government,  to  which  its  stipulations  are  advantageous,  has  a  right  to  be-« 
lieve  that  its  benefits  are  fully  secured.  Such  is  in  fact  the  situation  of 
the  Federal  Government.  This  Government  would  have  to  complain, 
not  of  us,  but  of  our  cabinet,  for  having  been  so  long  left  under  the  per- 
suasion that  the  stipulations  of  1831  would  be  confirmed.  The  sacrifice 
which  you  will  make  under  these  circumstances,  you  will  make  (and  it 
is  important  that  the  Federal  Government  should  be  convinced  of  it) 
to  a  delicate  and  generous  sentiment,  for  which  it  will  give  you  credit." 

I  wish,  indeed,  that  the  sacrifice  of  which  M.  Bignon  speaks  may  be 
made  to  a  sentiment  of  delicacy  and  generosity.  Those  sentiments  agree 
perfectly  with  justice  and  public  interest ;  but  from  whatever  motive  you 
may  decide  in  favor  of  the  treaty  of  1831,  you  will  not  the  less  have  ren- 
dered an  eminent  service  to  your  commerce  and  your  manufactures. 

See,  gentlemen,  what  England  did  in  a  situation  similar  to  that  in 
which  we  are  placed.  The  United  States  claimed  indemnification  for 
spoliations  committed  upon  their  commerce.  The  English  Parliament  did 


580  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

not  hesitate  to  acknwledge  the  justice  of  their  claims,  and  thirty-two  mil- 
lions were  allowed  to  the  United  States. 

Gentlemen,  in  coming  to  this  tribune  to  deposite  your  votes  in  the  urn, 
ask  yourselves  if  you  are  willing  to  become  responsible  for  the  conse- 
quences of  a  rupture  of  the  treaty ;  if  you  are  willing  to  answer  to  the 
country  for  the  disasters  which  it  may  bring  upon  your  commerce  and 
your  manufactures.  It  is  at  once  a  question  of  justice  and  of  national 
interest.  It  is  under  this  double  aspect  that  it  has  been  viewed  by  your 
committee,  which  persists  in  its  conclusions. 

M.  Berryer. 

I  request  the  Chamber  not  to  close  the  general  discussion  until  I  have 
addressed  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  a  question  which  appears  to 
me  to  be  of  the  greatest  importance  in  respect  to  the  principal  object  of 
the  law.  If  the  Chamber  will  permit  me  to  make  the  inquiry,  I  will 
limit  myself  to  a  single  question. 

Yesterday,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  in  endeavoring  to  show 
that  the  amount  of  the  indemnification  of  25,000,000  had  been  re- 
gulated upon  fixed  bases,  presented  to  you,  in  four  distinct  classes,  the 
objects  of  the  American  claims.  Leaving  aside  the  first  of  these  classes, 
I  pass  to  the  second.  It  concerned  American  vessels  seized  before  the 
United  States  could  have  known  of  the  decree  of  Rambouillet,  in  the 
ports  of  St.  Sebastian,  Bilboa,  and  Les  Passages.  According  to  the 
notes  which  I  have  taken  of  his  speech,  the  minister  said  that  there 
were  in  these  three  ports  twenty-eight  American  vessels  and  thirty-five 
cargoes,  which  were  taken  possession  of  by  the  French  agents;  and  he 
even  remarked,  that  the  American  vessels  entered  those  ports  only  upon 
the  invitation  of  a  French  commander,  M.  Thouvenot. 

It  is  proper  to  add,  gentlemen,  that,  according  to  the  minister,  the  ves- 
sels seized  at  St.  Sebastian,  Bilboa,  and  Les  Passages,  are  almost  the 
only  ones  as  to  the  value  of  which  there  are  any  data  that  are  at  all  cer- 
tain. The  sales  made  in  those  ports  have  served  to  fix  this  value,  and 
give  an  average  of  221,482  francs  and  20  centimes ;  so  that,  according  to 
the  calculations  of  the  minister,  the  thirty-five  vessels  and  cargoes  con- 
fiscated in  the  three  Spanish  ports  by  the  French  agents  would  present  a 
*total  value  of  7,831,873  francs;  and  it  is  for  these  7,851,873  francs  that 
the  confiscated  vessels  are  included  in  the  total  allowance  of  25,000,000. 

Thus,  according  to  the  minister,  in  giving  25,000,000  to  the  United 
States,  7,851,873  were  given  to  them  for  the  vessels  confiscated  in  the 
ports  of  Spain. 

Now,  I  ask  the  minister  how  it  is  that  the  French  Government,  treat- 
ing with  the  United  States  for  the  redress  of  all  their  grievances  suffered 
from  France,  among  which  are  included  an  amount  of  nearly  8,000,000 
for  the  confiscations  made  in  Spanish  ports,  has  paid  no  regard  to  the 
treaty  by  which  this  claim  has  been  settled,  and  definitively  settled,  be- 
tween Spain  and  the  United  States  ?  The  terms  of  the  treaty  concluded 
the  22d  of  February,  1819,  between  the  Spanish  Government  and  the 
United  States,  are  substantially  as  follows : 

The  Spanish  Government  cedes  the  Floridas  to  the  United  States. 
The  stipulations,  which  were  the  conditions  of  this  transfer,  framed  in 
the  same  spirit  with  the  cession  of  Louisiana  in  1803,  by  the  French 
Government,  are  these : 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  ]  531 

"  The  two  high  contracting  parties,  animated  with  the  most  earnest 
desire  of  reconciliation,  and  with  the  object  of  putting  an  end  to  all  the 
differences  which  have  existed  between  them,  and  of  confirming  the  good 
understanding  which  they  wish  to  be  forever  maintained  between  them, 
reciprocally  renounce  all  claims  for  damages  or  injuries  which  they  them- 
selves, as  well  as  their  respective  citizens  and  subjects,  may  have  suffer- 
ed, until  the  time  of  signing  this  treaty. 

"  The  renunciation  of  the  United  States  will  extend, 

"1.  To  all  the  injuries  mentioned  in  the  convention  of  the  11th  of 
August,  1802. 

"  2.  To  all  claims  on  account  oi' prizes  made  by  French  privateers^  and 
condemned  by  French  consuls^  ivithin  the  territory  and  jurisdiction  of 
Spain  y 

"  Article  1 1 .  The  United  States  exonerate  Spain  from  all  demands  in 
future,  on  account  of  the  claims  of  the  citizens  to  wliich  the  renuncia- 
tions herein  contained  extend,  considering  them  entirely  cancelled,  and 
undertaking  to  make  satisfaction  for  the  same  to  an  amount  not  exceeding 
five  millions  of  dollars." 

Finally,  "Article  14.  The  United  States  hereby  certify  that  they 
have  not  received  any  compensation  from  France  for  the  injuries  they 
sulfered  from  her  privateers,  consuls,  and  tribunals,  on  the  coasts  and  in 
the  ports  of  Spain  ;  for  the  satisfaction  of  which,  provision  is  made  by 
this  treaty;  and  they  will  present  an  authentic  statement  of  the  prizes 
made,  and  of  their  true  value,  that  Spain  may  avail  herself  of  the  same, 
in  such  manner  as  she  may  deem  just  and  proper." 

Thus,  gentlemen — 

A  Member. 

Those  are  not  seizures  made  by  Government,  but  by  privateers. 
The  President. 

M.  Berry er  has  not  finished.  Let  him  speak.  You  shall  answer  him 
directly. 

M.  Berryer. 

"  For  the  injuries  they  suffered  from  these  privateers,  these  consuls, 
and  these  tribunals,  on  the  coasts,  and  in  the  ports  of  Spain."  The  ob- 
jects of  the  indemnification  are,  then,  the  seizures  made  in  the  Spanish 
ports.  You  see,  gentlemen,  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
receives  a  compensation  for  this  class  of  its  claims  in  the  cession  of  the 
Floridas  ;  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  obliges  itself  to  in- 
demnify its  own  subjects  for  the  damages  caused  by  the  French  Govern- 
ment ;  and  that,  in  fine,  the  claim  of  the  United  States,  if  claim  there  be, 
is  transferred  to  Spain,  which,  in  its  turn,  may  prefer  claims  against 
France. 

This  would  then  be  a  question  between  us  and  Spain  ;  and  the  United 
States  are  completely  uninterested  in  the  seizures,  the  confiscations,  and 
the  condemnations,  which  took  place  during  the  French  occupation  of 
Spain.  Thus  8,000,000  are  to  be  deducted  from  the  25,000,000  which 
we  allow.     It  is  on  this  point  that  I  ask  an  explanation. 

Several  Members. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  give  it. 

M.  Berryer. 

We  shall  see. 


532  [  Boc.  No.  2.  ] 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

The  explanation  which  the  honorable  member  asks  is  not  difficult  to 
give.  The  treaty  of  which  he  speaks,  and  of  which  I  have  but  a  very- 
imperfect  knowledge,  as  it  does  not  at  all  concern  France,  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  question  of  the  vessels  seized  at  Bilboa,  Les  Passages,  and 
St.  Sebastian,  in  1809.  These  vessels  had  been  attracted  into  those  ports 
hy  the  invitations  of  the  French  General  who  commanded  them,  on  the 
part  of  France.  They  were  seized,  and  were  not  captured  by  privateers  ; 
they  were  not  tried  before  French  tribunals  ;  in  fine,  they  did  not  come 
within  any  of  the  classes  just  enumerated.  I  should  like  to  have  before 
me  the  treaty  of  which  the  honorable  member  has  spoken,  in  order  to 
make  the  comparison.  These  vessels  had  been  attracted  into  the  ports 
of  Bilboa,  Les  Passages,  and  St.  Sebastian,  by  the  invitations  of  the 
French  Governor. 

On  the  10th  of  February,  1810,  a  secret  order  was  issued  to  seize  the 
vessels  and  their  cargoes,  and  to  bring  them  into  Bayonne.  It  was  then 
that  they  fell  under  the  decree  of  Rambouiliet,  which  directed  that  they 
should  be  sold,  and  the  proceeds  deposited  as  consignments.  Afterwards 
came  the  decree  of  Trianon,  which  ordained  that  the  money  thus  depo- 
sited as  consignments  should  be  transferred  to  the  public  Treasury. 

These  are  the  facts  as  they  transpired  between  the  American  Govern- 
ment and  the  French  Government. 

The  treaty  which  has  just  been  cited  had  for  its  object  to  settle  the 
debt  of  Spain  to  the  United  States  of  America  ;  and  by  no  means  to  settle 
the  debt  due  by  France  to  the  American  Government,  arising  from  events 
which  occurred  within  the  Spanish  territory. 

These  ships  were  seized  in  Spain,  but  were  taken  to  France,  and  there 
confiscated.  They  are  by  no  means  comprised  in  the  treaty  which  has 
just  been  spoken  of;  they  were  very  legitimately  included  in  the  calcu- 
lation of  the  estimates  which  I  submitted  yesterday  to  the  Chamber. 

M.  Berryer. 

I  believe  that  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  who  is  not  very  familiar 
with  the  treaty  of  1819,  did  not  comprehend  the  terms  of  that  treaty 
when  I  read  it. 

It  is  evident  that  the  question  here  is  as  to  the  indemnification  granted 
by  the  Spanish  Government,  on  account  of  claims  founded  on  lists  of  cap- 
tures, proceeded  upon  by  French  tribunals  and  French  consuls,  in  the 
Spanish  territory. 

These  are  the  terms  of  the  article.     Permit  me  again  to  read  it. 

A  Member. 

And  the  transfer  to  Bayonne. 

M.  Berryer. 

The  transfer  to  Bayonne.  You  v.ill  see  if  the  treaty  does  not  apply 
to  that. 

What  do  the  United  States  give  up  ?  And  what  do  they  receive  in 
exchange  .'' 

[M.  Berryer  reads  the  treaty  again.] 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  has  told  you  that  the  treaty  has  no 
relation  to  any  thing  which  interests  France,  or  to  any  thing  which  France 
may  owe.     But,  on  the  contrary,  the  14th  article  relates  specially  to  what 


r  Doc    Ko.   2.  ]  533 

the  United  States  might  have  demanded  from  France  ;  and  these  very- 
pretensions  they  give  up  to  Spain. 

It  is  then  evident  that  this  is  a  satisfaction  granted  by  Spain  for  claims 
■which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  might  urge  against  France, 
since  the  United  States  thought  themselves  obliged  to  declare  that  they 
had  received  nothing  on  account  of  them  from  France. 

Novv^  we  shall  clear  av.ay  all  that  is  equivocal  in  the  case. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  has  prepared  a  statement  of  losses, 
depredations,  and  confiscations,  which  he  has  valued  according,  to  uncer- 
tain bases,  at  25,000,000. 

He  has  pointed  out,  besides,  two  or  three  classes  which  would  raise 
the  debt  to  twenty-eight  millions.  Since  he  has  collected  with  so  much 
care  all  the  documents  which  could  prove  the  prizes  made  b}'  French 
privateers,  and  the  condemnations  pronounced  against  the  United  States, 
has  he  prepared  another  distinct  statement  of  what  is  included  in  this 
treaty  ? 

France  has  never  been  subjected  to  any  other  claims  by  reason  of  the 
conduct  of  her  consuls,  of  her  agents,  of  her  tribunals. 

It  is  evident  that  we  are  paying  eight  millions  which  Spain  has  already 
paid. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Not  one  of  these  vessels  was  captured  by  French  privateers ;  not  one 
was  pronounced  upon  by  French  consuls  ;  not  one  vvas  pronounced  upon 
by  French  tribunals  ;  consequently,  there  is  not  one  to  which  the  article 
just  spoken  of  is  applicable.  They  were  confiscated  by  an  order  of  the 
Cabinet.     [After  some  difference  as  to  the  right  of  the  floor  ^] 

M.  Mauguix. 

This  incident  v/as  sufficient  to  show  you  how  little  the  matter  has  been 
examined.  In  truth,  what  was  the  first  word  spoken  by  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  ?  It  was,  that  he  had  a  very  confused  recollection  of  the 
treaty  made  between  Spain  and  the  United  States  for  the  cession  of  the 
Florid  as. 

What  !  (he  minister  has  a  confused  recollection  of  a  treaty  which  ought 
to  form  one  of  the  principal  bases  of  the  negotiation  ! 

During  'the  period  of  our  great  wars,  the  ports  of  Spain  being  open  to 
us,  our  privateers  carried  their  prizes  into  them,  and  our  consuls  pro- 
nounced condemnation. 

The  United  States,  then,  had  a  right  to  demand  indemnification  from 
Spain,  because  it  was  in  Spain  that  the  injury  was  committed  ;  and  from 
,  France,  because  it  was  the  French  that  caused  the  injury. 

It  became  indispensable  then  to  know  what  prizes  were  taken  into  the 
ports  of  Spain  by  our  privateers  ;  it  became  indispensable  to  know  what 
claims  of  the  United  States  were  paid  by  Spain  by  n^eans  of  the  cession 
of  the  Floridas;  and,  in  truth,  it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  an  exact  know- 
ledge of  our  debt,  without  first  knowing  the  portion  of  it  which  has  been 
paid  by  Spain, 

In  the  treaty  of  1819,  the  United  States  estimated  their  claims  at  five 
millions  of  dollars.  This  single  estimate  proves  that  they  had  forgotten 
nothing  ;  it  proves  that  a  gueat  part,  at  least,  if  not  the  whole,  ol  tlie 
damage  done  by  our  marine  to  the  marine  of  the  United  States  was  paid 


534  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

by  the  cession  of  the  Floridas  ;  and,  consequently,  Spain  may  one  day 
have  claims  to  urge  against  us,  and  we  shall  be  liable  to  pay  twice  on 
the  same  account. 

This  is  not  the  only  case,  gentlemen,  which  may  serve  to  show  you  how 
imperfectly  this  matter  has  been  examined.     You  have  been  spoken  to 
continually  about  the  treaty  for  the  cession  of  Louisiana  ;  but  there  are 
some  things  which  have  not  been  mentioned.     I  have  seen,  by  the  report, 
of  your  committee,  that  they  have  not  at  all  attended  to  that  treaty. 

When  the  French  ministers  demanded  of  the  United  States  reparation 
for  the  injuries  which  resulted  to  France  from  the  non-execution  of  the 
treaty  of  1803,  it  is  pretended  that  the  United  States  offered  to  grant  to 
our  shipping  the  privileges  of  the  most  favored  nation,  upon  condition  that 
we  would  grant  the  same  advantages  to  the  American  shipping. 

The  United  States  could  not  hold  this  language  ;  it  was  contrary  to  the 
treaty.  Your  ministry,  if  they  had  acquiesced,  would  have  proved  that 
the  treaty  was  not  understood  by  them. 

According  to  the  convention,  we  ought  always  to  enjoy  in  the  ports  of 
Louisiana  the  same  privileges  as  the  most  favored  nation.  [Denial  from 
the  ministerial  bench.]  I  have  ascertained  its  truth  ;  the  8th  article  pro- 
vides that  in  the  ceded  ports  of  Louisiana  we  should  enjoy  forever  the 
same  privileges  as  the  most  favored  nation.  Whenever  I  affirm  a  thing, 
you  may  be  sure  that  I  have  ascertained  the  truth  of  it. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

That  we  shall  see  presently. 

M.  Mauguin. 

Be  it  so.  We  shall  see  whether  there  are  two  different  editions  of 
the  same  treaty. 

[M.  IsAMBERT  hands  to  the  Speaker  a  copy  of  the  treaty.] 

M.  Mauguin. 

Here  is  the  text : 

"  Art.  8.  In  future,  and  forever  after  the  expiration  of  the  twelve 
years,  the  ships  of  France  shall  be  treated  upon  the  footing  of  the  most 
favored  nations,  in  the  ports  above  mentioned." 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Look  at  article  the  7th. 

M.  Mauguin. 

Look  at  article  the  7th !  It  is  very  long,  but  if  you  wish,  I  will  read  it 
to  you. — [  Yes !  Yes !] 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.  1 

You  will  see  that  they  have  assured  to  France,  for  twelve  years,  the  . 
same  treatment  which  their  own  vessels  have,  and — 

[Noise.] 

M.  Mauguin. 

*' Art.  7.  Shall  be  admitted  during  the  space  of  twelve  years,  in  the 
ports  of  New  Orleans,  and  in  all  other  legal  ports  of  entry  within  the 
ceded  territory" — 

F7'om  the  ministerial  bench. — For  twelve  years. 

M.  Mauguin. 

That  is  what  I  said.    For  twelve  years  we  were  to  be  exempt  from 


.A. 


[  Doc.  Mo.  2.  J  535 

duty  in  the  ceded  territories,  und  we  were  to  be  treated  forever  in  the 
ceded  ports  upon  the  footing  of  the  most  favored  nation.  [Ves  !  Yes ! 
That  is  it.'\ 

But  this  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  the  cession  of  Louisiana  ;  conse-  H 

quently,  it  is  a  part  of  the  price  of  that  cession. 

The  United  States  could  not  impose  upon  tlie  exercise  of  our  right  a 
new  condition  of  reciprocity.  We  were  entitled  to  enjoy  it  without  re- 
ciprocity. . 

We  had  the  right  in  the  ceded  ports  for  twelve  years  to  pay  no  more 
than  the  Americans  themselves,  and  we  had  the  light  forever  to  pay  no 
more  than  the  most  favored  nation  ;  and  if  the  United  States  have  failed 
to  perform  those  conditions,  it  does  not  follow  that  our  right  has  ceased. 
It  is  like  a  sale  of  real  estate,  upon  which  the  seller  may  always  return  if 
the  price  is  not  paid.  Here  the  rules  of  the  civil  law  are  applicable  ;  they 
belong  also  to  the  law  of  nations.  Then  all  the  reasonings  which  have 
been  presented  at  the  tribune  in  explanation  of  motives,  and  even  in  the 
report  of  the  committee,  are  done  away.  The  matter  has  not  been  suffi- 
ciently studied  ;  our  right  has  not  been  made  known  to  the  United  States. 
They  may  have  been  ignorant  of  it,  or  they  may  have  disregarded  it. 
Be  it  so  ;  they  negotiated  for  themselves ;  but  you,  you  were  cliarged  to 
negotiate  for  France.  Hoav,  then,  is  it  that  you  were  ignorant  of  our 
treaty  and  our  rights  ? 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Restoration  was  upon  the  point  of  negotiation 
when  it  was  overthrown.  This  is  an  error  ;  and  I  shall  relate  a  particular 
fact  in  regard  to  it,  which  will  have  influence,  and  which,  moreover, 
does  honor  to  a  man  now  in  misfortune.     [Hear  !  Hear  !] 

The  Chamber  appointed  Messrs.  Madier  de  Montjau,  Berenger,  and 
myself,  commissioners  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  the  trial  of  the  late 
ministers  of  Charles  X,  and  we  went  to  Vincennes  in  order  to  proceed 
with  the  interrogatories.  It  is  needless  to  say  to  you  that  these  interro- 
gatories were  conducted  as  they  ought  to  be  in  every  criminal  case.  We 
gave  M.  dePolignac,  when  we  were  interrogating  him,  some  time  for  rest ; 
and,  during  that  interval,  we  entered  into  conversation.  We  were 
speaking  (I  do  not  know  how  it  happened)  upon  the  subject  of  the 
American  claims ;  I  appeal  to  the  recollection  of  my  colleagues ;  and 
the  expression  of  M.  Polignac  does  him  honor.  When  these  claims  were 
mentioned,  he  cried  out,  under  the  impulse  of  national  feeling,  "  Take 
care,  we  owe  them  nothing;  I  have  studied  the  question;  we  owe 
them  nothing !"  This  exclamation  was  uttered  with  so  much  energy, 
that  it  showed  a  patriotic  feeling  to  which  I  am  happy  always  to 
do  justice.  I  told  M.  de  Polignac  so  at  the  time.  We  read  his  se- 
cret correspondence  on  the  subject  of  the  East,  and  we  then  found, 
with  astonishment,  I  confess,  that  his  policy  was  frank,  firm,  and  French  ; 
more  so,  perhaps,  than  the  policy  of  the  existing  ministry.  [Interriip- 
iion.] 

Since  chance  has  led  me  to  speak  of  the  old  ministry,  I  here  express 
my  regret,  that  when  I  was  called  upon  by  the  Chamber  of  Peers  for  my 
evidence,  the  accused  ministers  seemed  to  be  afraid  of  my  deposition. 
Their  fears  determined  me  to  abstain.  I  should  only  have  stated,  how- 
ever, in  regard  to  M.  de  Polignac,  the  two  facts  of  which  I  have  just 
spoken,  because  they  do  him  honor ;  and  I  should  also  have  stated,  in 


536  [  Doc.  No.  2.  J 

favor  of  M.  Peyronnet,  a  fact  which  is  equally  honorable  to  him,  [excla- 
matio7is,]  which  is,  that  we  are  indebted  to  him,  and  to  him  alone,  for 
the  return  of  the  deserters  fr^m  the  army  of  Spain.     [Disturbance.] 

I  return  to  the  question.  Here,  then,  are  two  circmnstances  which 
show  that  the  question  has  not  been  studied.  In  the  first  place,  no  at- 
tention has  been  paid  to  the  treaty  with  Spain  ;  and,  in  the  next  place, 
the  treaty  made  between  us  and  the  United  States,  respecting  the  ces- 
sion of  Louisiana,  has  been  misapprehended.  I  will  add,  that  the  ex- 
amination of  this  question,  as  it  respects  the  commercial  relations  of 
France  and  the  United  States,  has  been  equally  neglected.  The  United 
States  furnish  us  with  raw  materials,  cotton,  woods  and  tobacco.  France 
consumed  in  1832  thirty-three  millions  of  kilogrammes  of  cotton,  of 
which  twenty-seven  millions  came  from  the  United  States.  As  the 
United  States  send  us  their  raw  materials,  they  have  the  greatest  interest 
in  maintaining  with  us  relations  of  commerce  and  friendship.  We  have 
a  like  interest,  I  confess.  We,  ourselves,  ought  to  seek  to  preserve  a 
good  understanding  v.ith  the  United  States  ;  but  it  is  not  the  less  true, 
that  to  them  in  general  belong  the  advantages  of  our  relations,  and  we 
have  proof  of  it  in  the  comparative  amount  of  navigation  between  the 
two  countries,  during  the  four  years  from  1829  to  1832.  In  these  four 
years,  we  have  sent  to  America  279  vessels,  of  which  the  tonnage  was 
79,018  kilogrammes.  [?]  The  United  States  have  sent  us  1,815  vessels, 
of  which  the  tonnage  was  854,000  kilogrammes.  [?]  They,  then,  not  we, 
have  enjoyed  the  advantages  of  navigation  ■  they,  not  we,  have  profited 
by  them.     Thus,  you  need  not  fear  reprisals  on  their  part. 

What,  then,  is  the  language  of  the  minister  in  this  respect?  If  you 
reject  the  treaty,  says  he,  you  may  expect  reprisals.  But  have  not  the 
States  also  to  fear  reprisals  on  our  part.''  We  have  our  rights,  our  in- 
terests to  defend,  as  well  as  they ;  let  us  defend  our  interests  and  our 
rights. 

I  will  not  leave  this  tribune  without  saying  a  word  in  reference  to  a 
consideration  presented  yesterday  by  the  minister  at  the  close  of  his 
speech.  How!  the  people  of  other  countries  are  told  that  if  we  reject 
the  treaty,  we  have  reason  to  fear  that  troubles  will  break  out  in  our 
cities  and  among  our  manufacturers  ! 

Has  the  minister  forgotten  that  we  are  now  negotiating  with  England, 
and  that  he  is  furnishing  her  with  arms  against  us  ?  England  will  say  to 
him  that  she  also  possesses  the  power  of  exciting  commotion  in  France, 
and  that  she  will  exercise  it  if  we  oppose  her  demands,  it  will,  at 
length,  be  necessary  to  yield,  or  pay  all  that  is  asked  of  us.  With  such 
a  policy,  and  such  considerations,  diplomacy  is  degraded ;  a  nation  is 
disgraced.  And  when  a  Government  is  obliged  to  say  that  it  always 
trembles  at  the  idea  of  popular  commotion,  itleads  the  world  to  think 
that  it  always  trembles  at  the  idea  of  a  foreign  enemy. 

A  Member. 

Very  well !  Very  well ! 

M.  Mauguin. 

This  shows  but  little  knowledge  of  France.  France  (and  her  Govern- 
ment ought  to  be  like  her)  never  trembles,  either  before  popular  com- 
motion or  foreign  arms. 

The  Minister  of  Foreigi'T  Affairs. 

Gentlemen,  the  Government  finds  itself  placed  in  a  very  strange  posi- 


[    Doc.   No.  2.  ]  537 

tion.  It  is  charged  with  explaining  a  treaty,  a  treaty  which  is  warmly 
assailed.  This  treaty,  the  Government,  since  it  has  signed  it,  considers 
as  just,  wise,  and  politic.  In  order  to  prove  that  it  is  just,  it  becomes 
iiecessary  to  show  that  the  Government  with  which  it  has  been  conclud- 
ed has  a  right  to  the  indemnification  which  is  allov.ed.  Yet,  when  the 
Government  is  accomplishing  this  task,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  is 
accused  of  speaking  as  an  American  minister  would,  and  of  defending 
the  interests  of  the  American  Government. 

NVIiat  do  you  wish  us  t'»  do,  grnthMnen  r  Do  you  wish  us  to  come  here 
and  say  that  the  treaty  which  has  been  signed  is  neither  just,  nor  wise, 
nor  politic?     Tliat,  in  truth,  is  asked  of  us. 

You  are  indignant,  because  we  attempt  to  prove  that,  in  allowing  twen- 
ty-five millons  as  indemnification  to  the  Government  of  tlie  United  States, 
we  are  only  paying  a  just  and  real  debt.  Tiien  you  are  indignant,  because, 
having  inserted  commercial  stipulations  in  tlie  treaty,  we  endeavor  to 
demonstrate  that  those  stipulations  are  conducive  to  the  interests  of  both 
countries. 

And  when,  in  fine,  the  Government,  (jbliged  to  call  ujjon  the  Chamber  to 
reflect  upon  the  consequences  of  an  act  so  serious  as  tlic  annulling  of  a 
treaty  of  this  kind,  directs  its  attention  to  the  effects  which  might  result 
from  a  disturbance  of  the  general  state  of  our  commerce,  we  ai'c  told  that 
we  are  denouncing  France  to  foreign  nations  as  a  country  which  can  be 
swayed  by  the  tempest  of  iwpular  commotion. 

Gentlemen,  I  repeat,  what  are  tlic  arguments  that  you  wish  the  Go- 
vernment to  make  use  of?  IIow  can  it  justify  the  treaty,  if  not  by  spcak- 
sng  the  truth,  and  stating  the  real  consequences  which  the  rejection  of  the 
law  will  occasion? 

The  Government  is  then  obliged  to  tdl  the  Chamber  the  whole  truth  ; 
it  is  obliged  to  say  to  it  that  in  granting  the  twenty-five  nnllions,  it  has 
granted  them  for  a  real  debt,  and  that,  if  it  is  obliged  to  jiay  this  sum  to 
the  United  States,  it  is  not  the  fault  c^f  the  Govcrnuient ;  it  is  the  fault  of 
the  situation  in  which  it  finds  itself  jdaced.  I  repeat,  it  is  highly  ne- 
cessary that  you  should  know  the  pi-inciples  upon  which  it  has  been  deter- 
mined to  agree  to  this  sum  of  twenty-iive  millions. 

The  Government  is  equally  obliged  to  inform  you  by  what  considera- 
tions of  policy  it  was  decided  to  admit  the  commercial  stipulations  whicii 
are  inserted  in  the  treaty,  and  it  is  obliged  to  warn  the  Chamber  of  the 
consequences  of  the  determination  which  it  is  about  to  make.  This  is  not 
betraying  the  interests  of  France  ;  it  is  only  telling  the  truth  to  the  Cham- 
ber and  to  France  ;  for  it  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  tliis  Government,  that 
the  truth  Jihould  be  spoken  at  the  tribune. 

The  Government  has  been  very  often  accused  of  serving  foreign  Govern- 
ments, because  it  has  spoken  the  truth,  and  has  warned  the  Chamber  of 
the  consequences  which  might  follow  its  determinations  :  but  gentlemen,  1 
repeat,  it  is  a  characteristic  [of  this  Government  to  speak  out  openly, 
and  before  all  the  world. 

I  come  now  to  the  question  of  the  treaty  of  Louisiana. 

It  appears  to  me  that  we  agree  about  the  facts.     Tiiere  is  a  provision  in 

the  treaty  of  1803,   by  which  France  reserves  to  French  vessels,  in  the 

ports  of  her  ancient  colony,  all  the  ])rivileges  which  belong  to  vessels  of  the 

United  States,  for  twelve  years  ;  and,  at  the  expiration  of  the  twelve  years, 

35 


538  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

the  privileges  nliicli    belong  to  the  most  favored   nation.     'I'he.se  ai'c  the 
facts;  they  aic  not  disputed. 

What  was  the  ditHcuIty  ?  The  American  Government  had  olTercd  to  thn 
vessels  of  evevy  nation  in  Europe  tlie  same  piivileges  as  Iheir  own  vessels 
enjoyed,  upon  con(iilioii  of  recij)i-ocity.  Tlie  English  Govcrnmetit  had 
accepted  the  piivileges  Ihus  oRered,  on  condition  of  reciprocity. 

Tlie  Frenrii  Goveiiiinent  demanded,  in  the  ports  of  Louis.iana,  the  same 
privileges  which  were  enjoyed  by  the  vessels  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
ground  that  the  Englisli  Government  possessed  those  privileges  in  all  the. 
ports  of  the  Union,  not  excepting  those  of  Louisiana.  Out  of  this  demand 
there  arose  a  dispute,  which  lasted  several  years,  which  did  not  belong 
particularly  to  the  present  Government,  which  it  did  not  originate,  but 
which  it  found  in  existence  wberj  it  came  into  powei-,  and  has  conducted  to 
its  termination.     The  dispute  wi's  this: 

The  American  Government  said — Do  you  conceive  that  in  granting  to  the 
Englislj  Go\ernmeiit,  upon  condition  of  reciprocity,  the  privileges  which 
belong  to  our  own  vessels,  we  have  conferred  upon  them  a  favor  ?  If  so, 
you  have  a  riglit  to  it;  we  offer  it  to  you.  Arc  you  not  willing  to  take  it 
on  tlie  same  condition?  If  not,  we  say  tiiat  you  yourselves  acknowledge 
it  is  not  a  favor,  and  of  course  the  article  is  not  applicable. 

The  French  Govei-iiment  maintained,  on  the  conti'ary,  that  it  had  the 
right  to  theadvantage  without  the  condition  ;  to  the  privileges  of  America!! 
vessels  without  reciprocity. 

M.  Ukmar^ay. 

That  is  evident  ! 

TiiR  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Which  was  right  and  which  was  wrong  in  this  dispute  ?  1  assert  that 
it  is  now  pei-fectly  immaterial,  inasmuch  as  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  has  yielded  on  this  point,  and  has  acknowledged  the  light  of  France, 
for  some  reason  or  other,  whether  it  be  from  conviction  or  from  weariness 
of  tlie  controversy. 

I  say  again,  it  is  of  little  imj)ortancc  ;  from  the  time  that  the  riglit  of 
Fiance  was  acknowledged,  there  has  been  no  further  dispute. 

What  then  occurred  ?  The  Government  of  the  United  States  said,  that 
to  make  an  inequality  between  the  different  ports  of  the  Union  was  contra- 
ry to  tho  American  (yonstitution.  They  wished  to  negotiate  with  France 
on  this  subject,  and  to  purchase  the  right  which  France  had,  and  which 
was  conceded  to  it.  Thus,  after  acknowledging  the  right,  they  consented 
to  negotiate,  and  offered  an  equivalent. 

The  question  now  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Chamber,  there- 
lore,  is  this  :  the  point  is  not  to  ascertain  which  was  right  ot:  w  rong — 
the  French  Government  or  the  American  Government ;  it  is  to  ascertain 
whether  the  French  Government,  in  negotiating  respecting  this  right,  and 
in  parting  with  it  for  an  e(|uivalent,  has  done  an  act  hurtful  or  useful  to  the 
intei-ests  of  France. 

We  have  endeavored  to  demonstrate  that  the  French  Government,  itj 
surrendering  the  right  acknowledged  to  result  from  the  8th  article  of  the 
treaty  of  Louisiana,  and  accepting  an  equivalent  iu  exchange,  has  done 
only  what  is  leasonable  and  advantageous  ;  in  order  to  prove  it,  I  have 
shown  on  the  one  hand  the  value  of  the  right,  and  the  value  of  the  equi- 
valent upon  the  other.  It  is  clear  that  that  is  the  only  w  ay  to  settle 
the  question. 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  539 

Tlie  right  conferred  on  France,  by  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1803, 
was  to  national  treatment  forever  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana. 

What  is  the  difference  between  the  treatment  of  the  French  flag  now, 
and  that  treatment  to  which  it  would  be  entitled  if  the  provisions  of  the 
treaty  of  Louisiana  were  recognised  and  applied  ?  In  other  words,  how 
much  more  does  the  French  flag  pay  in  the  ports  of  Louisiana,  than  it 
would  pay  if  placed  on  the  footing  of  the  American  ? 

We  have  shown  that  since  the  convention  of  24th  June,  1822,  by  which 
all  discriminating  duties— all,  I  repeat — were  abolished  between  the  United 
States  and  France,  there  does  not  exist  in  any  of  the  ports  of  the  Union, 
not  excepting  those  of  Louisiana,  a  single  diflerence  between  the  French 
and  the  American  flags,  except  the  duty  of  five  francs  per  ton.  Thus  the 
advantage  we  renounced  would  have  been  a  saving  of  five  francs  per  ton 
upon  French  vessels  entering  the  ports  of  Louisiana. 

Such  is  the  advantage  we  have  yielded.  We  sought  for  an  equivalent, 
and,  in  doing  so,  calculated  the  number  of  vessels  and  the  amount  of  ton- 
nage entering  the  ports  of  Louisiana.  We  have  shown  that  during  a  period 
of  fourteen  years,  not  more  than  seven  or  eight  French  vessels,  on  an 
average,  came  to  entry  in  those  ports  each  year.  I  have  not  the  precise 
number  before  me,  but  I  stated  it  yesterday  to  the  Chamber. 

The  result,  however,  was  an  annual  advantage  of  1 4,000 fr.  deduced 
from  the  average  of  fourteen  years.  It  is,  then,  this  saving  of  14,000fr. 
which  the  French  Government  renounced  for  French  commerce  ;  it  has 
deprived  French  commerce  of  just  so  much  money. 

Now  what  have  we  in  return  ?  We  have  shown  that  the  equivalent 
offered  us  was  an  important  reduction  in  the  established  duties  upon  our 
wines,  a  reduction  producing  a  saving  to  the  amount  of  800,000  francs  per 
annum. 

M.  DEMARCAi'. 

There  is  the  enor. 

The  Minister  of  FoREIG^'  Affaiks. 

We  have  demonstrated  it,  and  i\L  Duchatel  has  again  proved  it  this  day. 
The  Government  has  exchanged  an  advantage  of  M,000fr.  per  annum  for 
one  of  800,0001'r.  per  annum. 

M.  Demarcay. 

There  is  no  comparison. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

The  only  diflerence  is,  that  the  benefits  secured  to  French  connnerce  by 
the  treaty  of  Louisiana  were  perpetual,  whilst  the  advantage  resulting 
from  the  J^riff'  of  wines  is  only  for  ten  years.  \V' e  have  obseived,  that 
diflerence  should  be  taken  into  account,  just  as  it  would  bo  in  commer- 
cial aflairs. 

Nothing  is  easier  than  to  compare  tlie  saving  resulting  from  14,000fr. 
per  annum  forever,  with  800,000fr.  per  annum  for  10  years;  and  when 
the  comparison  is  made,  it  will  he  seen  that  in  seven  or  eight  years  the 
latter  will  equal  the  former. 

This  is  what  I  said  yesterday  ;  it  is  correct,  and  capable  of  demonstra- 
tion with  the  most  rigorous  precision.  I  said  tliat  the  French  Government 
had  not  betrayed  the  interests  of  France  in  renouncing  for  the  benefit  of  our 
commerce  a  perpetual  advantage  of  14,000fV.  per  annum,  in  exchange  for 


540  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

800,000fr.  per  annum  during  ten  years.  We  did  not  admit  that  right  to 
be  negatived  which  belongs  to  France  by  the  treaty  of  1803;  we  have,  on 
the  contrary,  obtained  an  acknowledgment  from  the  United  States  of  the 
validity  of  the  right  claimed  by  the  French  Government  under  the  8th 
article  of  that  treaty  ;  and  after  that  acknowledgment,  we  have  exchanged 
this  right  for  another,  which  appeared  to  us  more  advantageous. 

As  to  the  Spanish  treaty,  the  reason  why  it  is  not  fresh  in  my  memory 
is,  because  it  was  not  a  treaty  between  France  and  a  foreign  country,  but 
between  two  foreign  countries. 

I  say,  merely,  that  taking  the  articles  such  as  they  are  in  that  treaty, 
there  is  not  one  of  them  which  is  applicable  to  one  of  the  vessels  mentioned 
in  the  account  I  presented  yesterday  ;  not  one  of  those  vessels  was  captured 
by  a  French  privateer  and  carried  into  the  ports  of  Spain ;  not  one  of  them 
was  condemned  by  a  French  consul  upon  the  Spanish  territory,  nor  pro- 
nounced upon  by  French  tribunals  after  having  been  seized  and  conducted 
into  the  Spanish  ports.     Tb.ey  make  a  class  altogether  special  and  peculiar. 

General  Thouvenot,  the  commandant  at  St.  Sebastian,  had,  with  the 
authority  of  Government,  attracted  to  the  ports  of  Spain  a  great  number 
of  American  vessels.  There  came  a  decision  of  the  Cabinet,  which  order- 
ed these  vessels  to  be  conveyed  to  Bayonne  ;  on  arriving  at  Bayonne,  they 
were  seized  and  sold  by  a  retrospective  application. 

[Much  noise  in  the  Chamber.'] 

Whatever  may  be  the  sense  of  the  treaty  spoken  of,  and  which  at  this 
moment  I  do  not  examine,  it  is  in  no  way  applicable  to  the  vessels  w^hich 
figure  in  the  account  which  I  have  submitted  to  the  Chamber;  nor  does  it 
in  any  way  invalidate  the  calculations  which  I  presented. 

As  for  the  commercial  question,  I  shall  leave  the  care  of  defending  that 
to  the  Minister  of  Finance,  and  to  those  of  my  colleagues  who  are  better 
versed  in  the  matter  than  I  am. 

I  ask  pardon  of  the  Chamber  for  the  new  explanations  into  which  I  have 
entered  to-day,  after  having  occupied  their  attention  two  hours  yesterday  ; 
but  I  was  unwilling  to  sutler  objections  made  to  pass  without  reply.  I 
will  conclude.  I  believe  I  have  replied  to  all,  but  if  the  question  again 
comes  up,  I  will  ask  permission — 

M.  GuizoT,   [Minister  of  Public  Instruction.] 

And  M.  de  Polignac?  You  forget. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

You  are  right. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  indeed  pained  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  explaining 
the  facts  cited  by  the  honorable  member  (M.  Mauguin)  who^receded 
me.  I  do  not  believe  it  just,  I  do  not  believe  it  correct,  to  bring  forward 
in  this  tribune  a  man  whose  present  situation  should  excite  interest,  what- 
ever he  may  have  done,  whatever  crimes  he  may  have  committed 
towards  France. 

I  was  careful  to  reply  at  first  to  the  facts  alleged  by  the  honorable 
member  who  spoke  last.  I  have  explained  to  the  Chamber  that  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  1830,  after  having  in  a  first  interview 
endeavored  to  repel  the  demands  of  the  American  minister  in  the  ordi- 
nary way  of  refusing  to  admit  them,  had  immediately  yielded  to  the 
generosity  and  nobleness  of  his  character,  and  abandoned  that  ground  is 


[  Doc.  No.  2.  J  541 

untenable.  That  in  an  interview  which  took  place  the  11  th  January, 
1830,  he  had  recognised  the  debt  of  the  French  Government  to  the 
Americans,  for  ships  destroyed  at  sea ;  and  that  he  had  even  cliaracter- 
ized  that  act  as  an  act  of  piracy.  That  in  another  interview  of  the  12th 
February,  1830,  he  recognised  the  debt  on  the  part  of  the  French  Go- 
vernment, on  account  of  captured  and  confiscated  vessels,  the  price  of 
which  had  been  deposited  as  a  consignment.  I  have  said,  in  fine,  that  a 
few  months  before  the  revolution  of  July,  two  negotiations  were  set  on 
foot  between  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  the  minister  of  the 
United  States,  one  of  which  was  official  and  the  other  confidential ;  that 
in  the  official  negotiation  the  American  minister  recapitulated  all  the 
concessions  which  had  been  successively  made  by  the  INlinister  of  Foreign 
Affairs.  In  truth,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  endeavored,  in  the 
note  which  he  sent  in  answer,  to  retract  some  of  tliose  concessions  ; 
nevertheless,  he  admitted  the  greater  part  of  them.  The  notes  exist ; 
and,  indeed,  I  should  be  sorry  to  be  compelled  to  dwell  on  this  point. 

I  have  said  that,  while  the  oihcial  negotiation  was  in  progress,  a  con- 
fidential negotiation  was  likewise  going  on;  that  the  minister  of  the 
United  States  had  offered  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  treat  upon 
the  question  of  Louisiana,  which  was  the  point  of  difficulty,  on  the  terras 
which  have  since  been  admitted  in  the  treaty  of  1831 ;  that,  at  the  request 
of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  a  confidential  memo  rand  inn  was  given 
to  him  on  the  20th  May,  containing  those  offers ;  that,  in  a  confidential 
letter  dated  May  31st,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  had  demanded 
further  explanations,  which  explanations  were  given  the  loth  of  June, 
and  were  then  verbally  admitted  by  him  to  be  in  appearance  sufficient ; 
to  which  he  added,  that  he  intended  to  present  a  counter-project,  wilii  a 
view  to  terminate  the  difference. 

The  above  I  had  the  honor  to  state,  and  I  now  repeat  it  here.  I  am 
sorry  that  a  person  should  have  been  cited  as  authority,  in  contradiction 
of  this  statement,  who  should  be  in  the  position  in  which  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  of  whom  I  have  been  speaking,  is  now  placed.  I  am  con- 
vinced that  the  language  he  used  to  the  honorable  member  was  only  in  gene- 
ral terms,  and  that  those  words  may  be  made  to  accord  with  the  facts  I  have 
recited.    [  Calls  for  the  questionfrom  some  members;  others  cry  '•'•go  o»."] 

M.   IsAMBKRT. 

Gentlemen,  I  wish  to  say  a  word  or  two.  [Question^  question.]  It 
appears  to  me  that  something  further  may  be  said  relative  to  the  seizure 
of  the  vessels  in  the  ports  of  Bilboa,  St.  Sebastian,  and  Les  Passages.  I 
have  some  facts  to  state  on  that  subject,  which  I  think  the  Chamber  ought 
to  hear.    ^Yes^  yes ;  go  o?i.] 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  has  supposed  that  France  was  not  a 
party  to  the  treaty  concluded  between  Spain  and  the  United  States  in 
1819.  It  is  true,  France  did  not  concur  directly  in  the  treaty,  or  take 
part  in  the  negotiation;  but,  in  attending  to  that  transaction,  we  perceive 
that  France  was  concerned  in  it  most  specially.  In  fact,  it  appears  from 
what  M.  Berryer  showed  yesterday,  that  the  treaty  encountered  seriou.s 
difficulties  on  account  of  the  situation  of  the  Floridas.  Spain  refused  to 
ratify  it.  The  time  assigned  for  the  ratification  elapsed,  and  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  in  a  message  to  Congress  of  the  ITtii  Decem- 
ber, 1819,  explained  to  Congress  the  consequence  of  the  refusal  to  latify, 
taking  into  consideration  the  particular  situation  of  the  Floridas. 


542  [  Doc.  No.  2.  ] 

The  President  of  the  United  States  consequently  announced  to  Con- 
gress that,  as  the  time  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  had  expired,  and 
in  order  to  terminate  the  affair,  the  Spanish  Government  should  be  in- 
formed that  vessels  of  their  nation  would  be  no  longer  received  in  the 
ports  of  the  United  States.  Moreover,  they  specially  demanded  the  in- 
tervention of  England  and  of  France,  for  obtaining  the  ratification. 

All  this  is  explained,  in  the  most  formal  manner,  in  the  message  of  the 
7th  December,  1819. 

France  employed  her  interest,  as  well  as  England,  to  secure  the  rati- 
fication of  this  treaty,  which  embraced  particular  stipulations.  Tlie  treaty 
was  ratified  on  the  part  of  Spain  on  the  24th  October,  1820,  after  the 
revolution  of  1820,  which  restored  the  Government  of  the  Cortes;  and 
then  the  ratification  followed  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  Thus  it 
appears  that  the  ratification  of  this  treaty  was  in  some  sort  due  to  the 
good  offices  of  France  and  England;  and  in  this  treaty  is  found  the  im- 
portant clause  which  has  been  quoted. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  clause  did  not  possess  the  general  character 
attributed  to  it ;  that  in  all  cases  in  which  the  prizes  were  not  tnade  by 
French  citizens,  nor  pronounced  upon  by  French  consuls,  it  was  evident 
these  five  or  six  millions  of  dollars,  for  indemnification,  could  not  be  con- 
sidered as  justly  lessening  the  claims  of  the  United  States.  But  the 
stipulations  of  the  treaty  are  general;  the  treaty  embraces  all  the  seizures 
which  were  made  in  the  ports  and  on  the  coasts  of  Spain. 

For,  from  the  moment  that  the  Government  has  laid  hands  on  the  prize, 
what  does  it  matter  whether  it  was  taken  by  a  cruiser,  or  regularly  con- 
demned ?  It  is  evident  that  the  act  is  equivalent  to  a  regular  seizure ; 
and,  as  the  seizures  took  place  in  the  ports  of  Spain,  those  vessels  could 
not  have  been  brought  to  the  ports  of  France  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  French  consuls. 

The  Spanish  Government,  by  indemnifying  the  United  States  for  prizes 
by  which  France  profited,  undoubtedly  has  a  claim  for  the  amount  on 
France.  But  Spain  is  indebted  to  us,  and  it  will  be  very  easy  to  make 
her  every  compensation. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  United  States  cannot  make  good  their 
claim  under  that  head  ;  the  sum  is  eight  millions,  and  the  debt  should  be 
thus  much  reduced. 

Gentlemen,  I  think  it  was  not  improper  in  me  to  lay  these  facts  before 
the  Chamber;  and  I  believe  that  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  has  by 
no  means  drawn  from  the  treaty  those  inductions  v.hich  he  submitted  in 
defence  of  the  negotiation. 

M.    DUPOUY.  • 

I  demand  the  floor. , 

The  President. 

Gentlemen,  shall  the  question  on  the  bill  be  taken? 

[The  Chamber  decided  that  the  debate  should  end,  and  the  question  be 
taken.     The  first  article  of  the  bill  ivos  then  read.] 

Article  1st.  The  Minister  of  Finance  is  authorized  to  take  the  neces- 
sary measures  for  carrying  into  effect  the  first  and  second  articles  of  the 
treaty,  signed  on  the  4th  of  July,  1831,  between  the  King  of  the  French 
and  the  United  States  of  America  ;  the  ratifications  of  which  were  ex- 


[  Doc.  No.   2.  ]  543 

changed  at  Washington  on  the  2d  of  February,  1832  ;  and  b}'  the  terms 
of  which  the  sum  of  twenty-five  millions  of  francs  is  to  be  paid  by  France. 
Several  members  requiring  a  call  of  the  House,  it  ivas  called,  and  the 
ballot  the^i  taken ;  the  results  oj  which  iccre  : 

Number  of  members  present,     -  -  -  -  .         344 

Majority  of  the  whole,  -  -  -  -  -         173 

Votes  against  the  bill,  -  -  -  -  -          176 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  -  -  -  -  -         168 


So  the  bill  ivas  rejected  by  8 

7%ere  tvas  much  agitation  in  the  Chamber,  which  immediately  ad- 


m 


■  HI 


kARY 

below. 


-4 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


\m 


